Medical Negligence Law

now is a crucial time, and law makers must be stricter in their definitions in order to protect the mental health of America.

By Ansuhree Bhattacharjee, Year 10 North London Collegiate

Before the 20th century, cases for medical negligence were uncommon and almost unheard of. However, cases such as Donoghue v Stevenson and Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee established a strong foundation for Medical Negligence Law and changed the course of medical law dramatically. Prior to the 20th century, a legal suit against a doctor or manufacturer would have to be based on breach of a contract. Although this helped doctors resolve disputes over trading and other arrangements, it did not benefit the relationship between the manufacturer and the doctors with their consumer or patients.

In 1932, a case named Donoghue v Stevenson changed this. Mrs Donoghue was drinking ginger beer from an opaque bottle, purchased by her friend, when she found the remains of a decomposing snail sitting at the bottom of her bottle. As a result of this, she suffered severe gastroenteritis and other health related consequences. The case was brought forward before senior judges in the House of Lords. Due to the contractual system, medical negligence could only be invoked if the plaintiff had an existing contract with the manufacturer, which it did not. Due to the severity of the situation, the judges agreed that no contractual relationship was required as the manufacturer is obliged to take responsibility for its products. The result was a majority 3 : 2 decision in favour of Donoghue.

Using Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan, Lord Atkins declared the statement, "The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question " Who is my neighbour?" receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question." In 1957, an equally important case followed, titled Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee. During electro-convulsive treatment for his mental illness, the claimant suffered hip fractures as a result of falling off the couch. He argued that he should have