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.
anon @ 11.57 - I don't think complex advice on limitation is analogous at all.
All the hospital receptionist needed to say was a couple of sentences, in terms no more complicated than what Ian has said below @ 12.25. As you have made clear yourself, you simply can't sum up limitation issues in the same way that you can sum up the triage process.
The legal relationship is fundamentally different as well; as others have mentioned, the solicitor is under no duty to act, whereas the hospital is under a duty to treat (assuming it is an A&E issue).
Having said that, in the unlikely event a solicitors' receptionist did start giving advice on limitation issues, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the courts held the firm liable if the advice was wrong. Similarly, I think what can be expected changes if what you have is a paralegal from the PI department taking more detailed instructions about the circumstances of the case.
The point is, I think there is a duty of care in both situations, whereas the Court of Appeal said in terms there was no duty. It did so whilst referring to issues that quite frankly related to the standard of care to be expected, not whether a duty did or should exist in the first place.
Copyright © 2019 The Law Society
Site powered by Webvision Cloud