The widow of a night watchman who died of arsenic poisoning claimed in negligence after he had attended the defendant’s hospital, but was negligently sent home without adequate treatment.
Held: The court was satisfied that even if the defendants had performed their duty of care and admitted the deceased to their hospital, he would still have died of arsenic poisoning five hours after being admitted, and that he therefore suffered no loss as a consequence of the breach of duty complained of.
The court distinguished between a casualty department of a hospital that closes its doors and says no patients can be received, in which case he would, by inference, have held there was no duty of care, and the case before him where the three watchmen, who had taken poison, entered the hospital and were given erroneous advice, where a duty of care arose. However, the watchman would have died from arsenic poisoning even if the hospital casualty department had treated him properly, and the hospital’s negligence was not a necessary element in the conditions which led to the watchman’s death. No damages were payable.
Nield J
[1969] 1 QB 428, [1968] 1 All ER 1068, [1968] 2 WLR 422
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gregg v Scott HL 27-Jan-2005
The patient saw his doctor and complained about a lump under his arm. The doctor failed to diagnose cancer. It was nine months before treatment was begun. The claimant sought damages for the reduction in his prospects of disease-free survival for . .
Cited – Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust SC 10-Oct-2018
The claimant had been assaulted. He presented at the defendant hospital with head injuries. Despite his complaints he said he was not treated properly, being told to wait five hours at reception, and went home. Later an ambulance was delayed and he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.222467
