I haven't seen the law report or any article, so "whilst every effort is made
blah, blah, blah, don't rely on anything I now say":-
I would argue that one thing that distinguishes a professional from a
non-professional is that, when it comes to the provision of
information,that the former will have a duty to inform patients in
circumstances other than simply when asked, whereas the latter, eg a
railway timetable clerk, only needs to do so when asked. The judge seems to
think you are railway timetable clerks.
Clearly the judge is entitled to say that there was a significant degree of
contributory negligence by the patient in failing to check up again after
the first failed attempts,but that should only reduce damages but not by
100%. However, it depends on how often she tried to call. If he felt her
neglect was substantial, then he can rule fully against her, but I would
not say this gives any comfort to doctors wishing to not bother calling
patients, especially in the case of patients who are not "sensible and
intelligent".
Graham
Graham Ross
Solicitor
Ross & Co
Liverpool, UK
+44 (0)151 284 8585
+44 (0)151 236 6035-fax
ALeRT:-http://www.alertuk.com
Y2K-LAW:-http://www.y2kalert.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|