swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Professional Negligence - From: 1930 To: 1959
This page lists 11 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Vancouver General Hospital v McDaniel [1934] 56 LT 56; [1934] UKPC 60
27 Jul 1934
PC
Lord Alness
Professional Negligence, Commonwealth
British Columbia A hospital owes a duty to establish adequate procedures to safeguard patients from cross-infection. Howeber it was a good defence to show that the defendants had acted in accordance with a general practice.
Lord Alness said: "A defendant charged with negligence can clear [himself] if he shows that he has acted in accord with a general and approved practice."
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Groom v Crocker [1939] 1 KB 194
1939
Legal Professions, Contract, Professional Negligence
An action by a client against a solicitor alleging negligence in the conduct of the client's affairs, is an action for breach of contract. A solicitor is not entitled to payment of his costs by his client where his own negligence makes the work he did quite ineffective.
1 Citers
Candler v Crane Christmas and Co [1951] 2 KB 164; [1951] 1 All ER 426; 36 Digest (Rep 1) 17; [1951] 1 TLR 371
15 Dec 1950
CA
Cohen, Asquith, Denning LJJ (Dissenting)
Professional Negligence
Though the accounts of the company in which the plaintiff had invested had been carelessly prepared and gave a wholly misleading picture of the state of the company, the plaintiff could not recover damages. A false statement, carelessly, as contrasted with fraudulently, made by one person to another though acted on by that other to his detriment, was not actionable in the absence of any contractual or fiduciary relationship between the parties. This principle had not been qualified Donoghue v. Stevenson.
Denning LJ (dissenting) said:"Accountants, in preparing and rendering accounts and reports, owed a duty of care not only to their clients but to any third person to whom they knew that their clients were going to show the accounts and reports when, to the knowledge of the accountants, that person would consider the reports and accounts with a view to the investment of money or taking some other action to his gain or detriment. "Let me now be constructive and suggest the circumstance in which I say that a duty to use care in statement does exist apart from a contract in that behalf. First, what person's are under such duty? My answer is those persons such as accountants, surveyors, valuers and analysts, whose profession and occupation it is to examine books, accounts, and other things, and to make reports on which other people - other than their clients - rely in the ordinary course of business.
Secondly to whom do these professional people owe this duty? I will take accountants but the same reasoning applies to the others. They owe the duty, of course to their employer or clients; and also I think to any third person to whom they themselves show the accounts, or to whom they know their employer is going to show the accounts, so as to induce him to invest money or take some other action on them. But I do not think the duty can be extended still further so to include strangers of whom they have heard nothing and to whom their employer without their knowledge may choose to show their accounts. Once the accountants have handed their accounts to their employer they not, as a rule, responsible for what he does with them without their knowledge or consent. The test of proximity in these cases is, did the accountants know that the accounts were required for submission to the plaintiff and use by him?
Thirdly, to what transactions does the duty of care extend? It extends, I think, only to those transactions for which the accountants knew their accounts were required."
Asquith LJ illustrated the law excusing liability for negligent miststatement: "Singular consequences would follow if the principle laid down in [Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562] were applied to negligent misrepresentation in every case in which the representee were proximate to the representor. The case has been instanced by Professor Winfield and referred to by my brother Denning of a marine hydrographer who carelessly omits to indicate on his map the existence of a reef. The captain of the Queen Mary, in reliance on the map and having no opportunity to check it by reference to any other map, steers her on the unsuspected rocks, and she becomes a total loss. Is the unfortunate cartographer to be liable to her owners in negligence for some millions of pounds damages? If so, people will, in future, think twice before making maps. Cartography would become an ultra-hazardous occupation."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Cassidy v Ministry of Health; CA 1951 - [1951] 2 KB 343
Otter v Church Adams Tatham and Co; ChD 1953 - [1953] Ch 280
Roe v Minister of Health [1954] EWCA Civ 7; [1954] 2 All ER 131; [1954] 2 QB 66; [1954] 2 WLR 915
8 Apr 1954
CA
Somervell, Denning, Morris LJJ
Professional Negligence
The plaintiffs sought damages after being severely paralysed after what should have been minor spinal anaesthetic procedures. The nupercaine had been contaminated by seepage. A part time anaesthetist, not employed directly by the hospital had been found negligent. Held: Lord Denning cautioned against the use of hindsight in assessing whether an alleged tortfeasor has been negligent, since it was easy to be wise after the event. The standard of care is to be judged on the basis of scientific and technical knowledge at the time of the alleged negligence. The maxim "res ipsa loquitur" has no magical qualities. The hospital was liable for the negligence of those who administer treatment in its hospital, regardless of their exact employment status.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Simmons v Pennington and Son; CA 1955 - [1955] 1 All ER 240; [1955] 1 WLR 183
Hunter v Hanley; 4-Feb-1955 - [1955] SLT 213; [1955] ScotCS CSIH_2; 1955 SC 200; [1955-95] PNLR 1
Phillips v Ward [1956] 1 WLR 471; [1956] 1 All ER 874
1956
CA
Denning LJ
Damages, Professional Negligence
A negligent survey had been provided to prospective purchasers of a house. It would have cost £7,000 to put the property into the condition in which it had been described in the report. Held: The correct measure of damages was not £7,000 but £4,000. The latter figure represented the difference between the value of the property as it should have been described at the time of its acquisition and its value as described.
Denning LJ stated that: "The general principle of English law is that damages must be assessed at the date when the damage occurred, which is usually the same day as the cause of action arises . . " and "The proper measure of damages is . . the difference between the value in its assumed good condition and the value in the bad condition which should have been reported to the client."
1 Citers
Goody v Baring; CA 1956 - [1956] 1 WLR 448; [1956] 2 All ER 11; [1956] Sol Jo 320
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee; QBD 1957 - [1957] 1 WLR 582; [1957] 2 All ER 118
