Procedure

Clinical negligence new starter guide

Clinical negligence new starter guide is aimed at claimant and defendant paralegals, trainee solicitors and those who are starting out in clinical negligence practice. It provides an introduction to the topic, factors to be aware of and a summary of the key steps in commencing, running and responding to a claim.

Pre-action protocols

The Pre-Action Protocol for the Resolution of Clinical Disputes (Clinical Disputes Protocol) is designed to encourage a climate of openness when something has gone wrong with a patient’s treatment or the patient is dissatisfied with medical treatment. It sets out a timed sequence of steps for patients and health care providers to follow when a dispute arises. It is designed to speed up the exchange of relevant information and increase the prospects of dispute resolution without resorting to legal action. This protocol is now regarded by the courts as setting the standard of normal reasonable pre-action conduct for the resolution of clinical disputes. For further guidance, see Practice Note: The Pre-Action Protocol for the Resolution of Clinical Disputes—6 April 2015 onwards.

The protocol now makes specific reference

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Occupiers’ liability and the threshold test for duty of care (Lillystone v Bradgate)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Upon appeal, the High Court found that a claimant casual footballer paying to play a ‘knockabout’ game at school premises where there were no arrangements in place to retrieve a ball kicked out of play into another part of the defendant’s sports facilities (adjacent sports playing fields) caused his own injury when he climbed a 2.1m gate and severely lacerated his hand. The claimant was a trespasser while climbing the gate between two adjacent parts of the premises where he was not a trespasser. The defendant’s duty of care did not extend to providing any system or facilities to aid ball retrievable, despite the trial judge’s findings that doing nothing and waiting was ‘not what football players would do’. The threshold test imposing a duty of care was not met because the claimant decided to climb the locked gate to gain access to adjacent playing fields. What amounts to ‘reasonable’ safety of visitors under section 2(2) and (5) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) appears to fall firmly within the characteristics equating to a definition of ‘reasonable’ amounting to ‘adequate’, rather than equating to the dictionary definition of reasonable ‘based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical’. On the facts and circumstances of this case the sports premises were safe, despite there being no facility for ball retrieval. The danger to the claimant only arose because the claimant decided to take a risk to climb a gate that was an obvious danger. Written by Abigail Holt, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents