Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority
Court
UKHL
Year
1997
Category
Professional Standards
Compensation
Appeal dismissed; no compensation awarded as the defendant was not found liable for causing the injury.
Background
A two-year-old boy suffered catastrophic brain damage after cardiac arrest induced by respiratory failure. A doctor negligently failed to attend despite being called by nurses. The doctor argued that even if she had attended, she would not have intubated the child, which was the only intervention that would have prevented the injury.
The Legal Question
Whether the doctor's hypothetical decision not to intubate, had she attended, would have been negligent, and whether the court must blindly accept expert evidence supporting that decision.
The Court's Decision
The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, holding that the doctor's failure to attend did not cause the injury because she would not have intubated, and this hypothetical decision was supported by a logical, responsible body of medical opinion.
A court is not bound to accept expert medical opinion if it is not capable of withstanding logical analysis. The court can reject a body of professional opinion if it is unreasonable or indefensible.
Relevant Legal Provisions
What This Means for Your Practice
Clinical decisions must be logically defensible and based on a proper weighing of comparative risks and benefits.
Courts, rather than medical professionals, have the final say on what constitutes a reasonable standard of care.
Adhering to an accepted practice is not an absolute defense if the practice itself is deemed illogical by the court.
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.