Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

anon @ 13.50 - the reason that I suspect the Supreme Court gave permission to appeal is that on the Court of Appeal's decision, the reason that the Claimant left hospital and what he planned to do at home is irrelevant. The CofA said the claim failed at the most basic level, as the hospital receptionist did not owe a duty of care other than to perform their narrow clerical role of taking details down and passing them to the medical team.

So imagine that rather than going home, the Claimant left the Defendant's A&E in order to get a taxi to another A&E, or to his GP surgery. Maybe he planned to go home and call an ambulance. Maybe he planned to walk to his mate Dave's house, because Dave was a final year medical student? Maybe he planned to go home, and come back a few hours later when it was his turn to be seen.

Those decisions may be more or less questionable than the decision this Claimant took, but the point is that the trial judge found that if the Claimant had been given correct information, then he would have stayed i.e. the court accepted that the (incorrect) information given did affect the decision that the Claimant took. I think the parties had already agreed that if he had stayed and been triaged, the seriousness of his condition would on balance have been recognised and he would have been treated quickly enough to avoid the serious injuries he now has.

Notwithstanding that, the Claim failed because the Court said there was no duty on the reception to give correct information, nor any duty not to give incorrect information.

Your details

Cancel