The following PI & Clinical Negligence guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
Causation and remoteness are the principles that the courts use to determine what should be recoverable in damages as a result of clinical negligence. The law, therefore, limits the damage for which the clinician will be liable by these two mechanisms. Reasonableness and foreseeability are the tools used to give effect to common sense and public policy and both are necessary parts of causation and remoteness.
Most clinical negligence cases involve claimants who were ill before the treatment and proving causation can therefore be complex.
The basic test for causation is the ‘but for’ test. If the claimant would not have suffered the injury but for the negligence of the doctor, the claim is made out. However, this test is subject to limits and exceptions which are considered in this Practice Note.
Confusingly, it is sometimes said that the loss will not have been caused by the breach unless it was within the scope of the defendant’s duty. Furthermore, damages will not be recovered after a breach if it was not foreseeable at the time of the breach.
Therefore, an injury or loss that is within the ‘but for’ test may still be irrecoverable if it is not proved that the injury or loss was within the scope of the clinician’s duty.
In ABC v St George’s Healthcare,
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Take a free trial
0330 161 1234