Inner House – The pursuer and reclaimer sought reparation for son after grave injury sustained at his birth in a maternity hospital run by the defenders and respondents. She attributes that injury to negligence in a consultant obstetrician. Following a proof, the Lord Ordinary concluded that negligence had not been established and he assoilzied the defenders. The pursuer now reclaimed against that decision.
Held: The Lord Ordinary’s judgment was upheld.
Judges:
Lord Eassie, Lord Hardie, Lord Emslie
Citations:
[2013] ScotCS CSIH – 3, 2013 SC 245, 2013 GWD 5-136
Links:
Citing:
Appeal from – Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board SCS 30-Jul-2010
Outer House – The pursuer sought damages for personal injuries to her son at his birth, alleging negligence by the medical staff at the defender hospital. She said that she had been advised a cesarian birth for her child, but the doctors had not . .
Cited – Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital HL 21-Feb-1985
Explanation of Medical Risks essential
The plaintiff alleged negligence in the failure by a surgeon to disclose or explain to her the risks inherent in the operation which he had advised.
Held: The appeal failed. A mentally competent patient has an absolute right to refuse to . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board SC 11-Mar-2015
Change in Doctors’ Information Obligations
The pursuer claimed that her obstetrician had been negligent, after her son suffered severe injury at birth. The baby faced a birth with shoulder dystocia – the inability of the shoulders to pass through the pelvis. The consultant considered that a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Scotland, Professional Negligence, Personal Injury
Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470538