Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
Court
Queen's Bench
Year
1957
Category
Professional Standards
Compensation
No compensation awarded as the jury found the defendants not negligent.
Background
John Hector Bolam sustained severe hip and pelvis fractures during electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) for depression. He sued the hospital for negligence, arguing the doctors failed to warn him of fracture risks, failed to administer relaxant drugs, and failed to manually restrain him during the convulsions.
The Legal Question
Whether the medical practitioners were negligent in failing to warn the patient of the risks, failing to use relaxant drugs, and failing to physically restrain the patient during the procedure.
The Court's Decision
The court held that the doctors were not negligent. They had acted in accordance with practices accepted by a competent body of professional opinion at the time, which was sufficient to fulfill their duty of care.
The 'Bolam Test': A doctor is not guilty of negligence if they have acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art, even if there is a contrary body of opinion.
Relevant Legal Provisions
What This Means for Your Practice
Establishes that following an accepted medical practice is a strong defense against negligence claims.
Acknowledges that reasonable differences in medical opinion do not inherently constitute negligence.
Protects doctors from being held liable purely because a different doctor might have chosen an alternative method.
Original Judgement
Explore More Cases
Disclaimer: The case summary, legal analysis, and practical notes on this page are for educational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. The original PDF is sourced from public Indian court records. MedicoLegalAid does not claim ownership of the original judgement.