28:
292:
the speculations of the inexpert; and this is a fact to be considered on their admissibility". Accordingly, the documents should have been admitted. Similarly Hope JA held that the records were made by people who intended them to be as accurately as possible. While mistakes could occur they were likely to be far more reliable than human memory.
309:
Reynolds JA held that on 26 July 1971 Professor Gye ought to have been alerted to the possibility that the spinal cord had not developed properly and knew and accepted that the danger to her spinal cord would depend on his advice. This was enough to impose a duty of care on
Professor Gye and the jury
291:
held that the evidence of the hospital's Deputy
Medical Records Administrator established that the whole of the hospital's records were written for the purposes of the hospital and that those records were "kept for the information of the staff and treating doctors. They are not likely repositories of
270:
rejected the proposition that doctors could not be negligent if they acted in accordance with the usual and customary practice and procedure in their “medical community”, holding that "it is not the law that, if all or most of the medical practitioners in Sydney habitually fail to take an available
279:
Reynolds JA held that the hospital had undertaken to provide for Ms
Albrighton's complete medical care and to provide that service through staff chosen by the hospital. On that evidence a jury could find that the hospital had undertaken to take reasonable care to provide for her medical needs and
300:
Reynolds JA held that on the evidence a jury could have found that Dr Tyer had some reservations about applying traction and knew that traction could endanger the integrity of Ms
Albrighton's spinal cord. Despite those reservations Dr Tyer had applied traction without receiving any advice or any
192:
was not carried out prior to applying traction, which commenced on 28 July. On 30 July Ms
Albrighton started showing signs of spinal cord involvement. By 1 August Ms Albrighton became unable to walk. All traction was stopped on 2 August, however her spinal cord was totally severed leaving her a
217:. Yeldham J had allowed only part of the hospital medical records to be tendered. Neither Dr Tyer nor Professor Gye gave evidence. After 11 days of hearing Yeldham J directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendants. Yeldham J held that :
221:
A hospital in NSW is only vicariously liable for the negligence of a doctor if it can direct the doctor as to the manner in which he can do his work. It is not enough if the hospital can direct the doctor as to what work he can
318:
The Court of Appeal did not decide whether or not the hospital or doctors had been negligent and instead ordered that there be a new trial. There is, however, no record of whether such a trial occurred nor its outcome.
183:
with respect to spinal pathology and possible dangers to cord of correction of scoliosis by halo-pelvic traction." The frame was attached to her skull and pelvis on 26 July 1971. On that day
Professor Richard Gye, a
482:
At the time proceedings for damages caused by negligence were commonly tried under the system before a judge who determined questions of law and a jury which determined questions of fact: see
512:
351:
226:
232:
There was no evidence on which the jury could find the hospital could direct the doctors as to the manner in which they did their work.
179:. The hospital's consultation sheet recorded on 23 July 1971 that "Dr Tyer would appreciate advice regarding significance of her hairy
280:
that there was an overriding and continuing duty of care owed by the hospital, regardless of the legal duties imposed on the doctors.
584:
569:
525:
579:
168:
167:
which seriously impaired her respiratory function and shortened her life expectancy. In July 1971 she was admitted to
574:
271:
precaution to avoid foreseeable risk of injury to their patients, then none can be found guilty of negligence".
547:
267:
107:
551:
517:
328:
301:
further diagnostic investigations. On this basis the jury could have found that Dr Tyer had been negligent.
136:
172:
171:
for corrective surgery intended to straighten and lengthen her spine in a procedure known as halo-pelvic
538:
333:
188:, wrote on the consultation sheet "As she has had (just) traction I will see her later in the week." A
470:
202:
88:
413:
Clark J.A.; Kesterton, L. (December 1971). "Halo pelvic traction appliance for spinal deformities".
400:
210:
206:
176:
103:
38:
27:
288:
111:
521:
193:
paraplegic. Professor Gye saw Ms
Albrighton on 2 August however the paraplegia was irrevocable.
430:
495:
422:
543:
499:
487:
466:
396:
77:
57:
235:
There was no evidence
Professor Gye had seen Ms Albrighton nor given advice to Dr Tyer.
160:
563:
426:
185:
164:
205:, claiming that either or both of the doctors were negligent and the hospital was
310:
may have found that his failure to intervene was a breach of his duty of care.
345:
214:
154:
132:
189:
434:
229:, negligence required proof of proper medical practice in Sydney in 1971.
128:
251:
applying traction when there was a likelihood of tethering of the spine.
327:
The approach of the Court of Appeal was subsequently approved by the
180:
248:
failing to have myelography carried out before traction was applied;
358:
554:
per Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson, Toohey & McHugh JJ at p 487.
245:
failing to obtain neurological advice from
Professor Gye;
175:. At the hospital she was treated by Dr Harry Tyer, an
201:In 1977 Ms Albrighton commenced proceedings in the
99:
94:
84:
69:
64:
52:
44:
34:
20:
458:
456:
454:
452:
450:
448:
446:
444:
388:
386:
384:
382:
380:
378:
376:
374:
209:for their negligence. The case was heard before
238:There was no evidence Dr Tyer was negligent in:
8:
513:Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
352:Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
227:Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
26:
17:
463:Albrighton v Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
393:Albrighton v Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
74:Albrighton v Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
114:
370:
131:case concerning the application of the
492:Maroubra Rugby League Club Inc v Malo
153:
7:
484:Pambula District Hospital v Herriman
14:
526:High Court of England & Wales
284:Admissibility of hospital records
225:Having regard to the decision in
1:
550:479 (19 November 1992),
427:10.1016/0021-9290(71)90048-0
169:Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
305:Claim against Professor Gye
601:
275:Claim against the hospital
124:Albrighton v RPA Hospital
25:
21:Albrighton v RPA Hospital
585:New South Wales case law
570:Australian tort case law
399:542 (29 September 1980)
323:Subsequent consideration
496:[2007] NSWCA 39
415:Journal of Biomechanics
137:professional negligence
580:1980 in Australian law
544:[1992] HCA 58
469:165 (14 August 1979)
296:Claim against Dr Tyer
471:Supreme Court of NSW
203:Supreme Court of NSW
89:Supreme Court of NSW
401:NSW Court of Appeal
177:orthopaedic surgeon
39:NSW Court of Appeal
207:vicariously liable
539:Rogers v Whitaker
334:Rogers v Whitaker
120:
119:
48:29 September 1980
592:
575:1980 in case law
555:
535:
529:
509:
503:
480:
474:
460:
439:
438:
410:
404:
390:
263:Standard of care
159:) was born with
158:
116:
95:Court membership
30:
18:
600:
599:
595:
594:
593:
591:
590:
589:
560:
559:
558:
536:
532:
510:
506:
481:
477:
461:
442:
412:
411:
407:
391:
372:
368:
342:
325:
316:
307:
298:
286:
277:
265:
260:
199:
152:Ms Albrighton (
150:
145:
12:
11:
5:
598:
596:
588:
587:
582:
577:
572:
562:
561:
557:
556:
530:
504:
475:
440:
421:(6): 589–590.
405:
369:
367:
364:
363:
362:
355:
348:
341:
338:
324:
321:
315:
312:
306:
303:
297:
294:
285:
282:
276:
273:
264:
261:
259:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
249:
246:
240:
239:
236:
233:
230:
223:
198:
195:
161:kyphoscoliosis
149:
146:
144:
141:
118:
117:
101:
100:Judges sitting
97:
96:
92:
91:
86:
82:
81:
71:
67:
66:
62:
61:
54:
50:
49:
46:
42:
41:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
597:
586:
583:
581:
578:
576:
573:
571:
568:
567:
565:
553:
549:
546:, (1992) 175
545:
541:
540:
534:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
514:
508:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
479:
476:
472:
468:
464:
459:
457:
455:
453:
451:
449:
447:
445:
441:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
409:
406:
402:
398:
394:
389:
387:
385:
383:
381:
379:
377:
375:
371:
365:
361:
360:
356:
354:
353:
349:
347:
344:
343:
339:
337:
336:
335:
330:
322:
320:
313:
311:
304:
302:
295:
293:
290:
283:
281:
274:
272:
269:
262:
257:
250:
247:
244:
243:
242:
241:
237:
234:
231:
228:
224:
220:
219:
218:
216:
212:
208:
204:
197:Prior actions
196:
194:
191:
187:
186:neuro-surgeon
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
156:
147:
142:
140:
138:
134:
130:
126:
125:
113:
109:
105:
102:
98:
93:
90:
87:
85:Appealed from
83:
79:
75:
72:
68:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
43:
40:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
537:
533:
511:
507:
498:, (2007) 69
491:
483:
478:
462:
418:
414:
408:
392:
357:
350:
332:
326:
317:
308:
299:
287:
278:
266:
200:
165:spina bifida
157: Zengin
151:
123:
122:
121:
73:
70:Prior action
65:Case history
15:
268:Reynolds JA
564:Categories
552:High Court
486:(1988) 14
346:Negligence
329:High Court
143:Background
133:Bolam test
314:Aftermath
289:Hutley JA
211:Yeldham J
190:myelogram
520:118; 1
490:387 and
340:See also
258:Judgment
173:traction
129:tort law
108:Reynolds
53:Citation
435:5162580
127:, is a
45:Decided
518:All ER
433:
213:and a
181:naevus
112:Hutley
110:&
542:
524:582,
500:NSWLR
494:
488:NSWLR
467:NSWLR
397:NSWLR
366:Notes
359:F v R
148:Facts
78:NSWLR
58:NSWLR
35:Court
502:496.
431:PMID
215:jury
163:and
135:for
104:Hope
548:CLR
522:WLR
423:doi
331:in
222:do.
155:née
115:JJA
80:165
60:542
566::
516:2
465:2
443:^
429:.
417:.
395:2
373:^
139:.
106:,
76:2
56:2
528:.
473:.
437:.
425::
419:4
403:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
