56:'The authority's evidence was that the sole cause was the original traumatic injury to the hip. The plaintiff's evidence, at its highest, was that the delay in treatment was a material contributory cause. This was a conflict, like any other about some relevant past event, which the judge could not avoid resolving on a balance of probabilities. Unless the plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that the delayed treatment was at least a material contributory cause of the avascular necrosis he failed on the issue of causation and no question of quantification could arise. But the judge's findings of fact are unmistakably to the effect that on the balance of probabilities the injury caused by the plaintiff's fall left insufficient blood vessels intact to keep the epiphysis alive. This amounts to a finding of fact that the fall was the sole care of the avascular necrosis.'
40:. This was more advanced and serious than if it had been spotted straight away. By the age of 20 years, there was deformity of the hip joint, restricted mobility and permanent disability. The judge found that even if the diagnosis had made correctly, there was still a 75% risk of the plaintiff's disability developing, but that the medical staff's breach of duty had turned that risk into an inevitability, thereby denying the plaintiff a 25% chance of a good recovery. At first instance, damages were quantified at £11,500 representing 25% of the full value of the damages awardable for the plaintiff's disability.
52:
Bridge of
Harwich considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff's medical expert, who concluded that: 'tatistically, on reports published, he had a marginally better chance of escaping it than having avascular necrosis had it been treated expeditiously.' Consequently, Lord Bridge rejected the trial judge's position on damages, finding that on the balance of probabilities, even correct diagnosis and treatment would not have prevented the disability from occurring. It followed that the plaintiff had failed on the issue of factual causation, as they were unable to meet the legal standard of proof:
64:, as expressly applied by Lord Mackay in this case, that ' determining what did happen in the past the court decides on the balance of probabilities. Anything that is more probable than not it treats as certain.' It became a legal certainty that there was no causal relationship between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's lost chance of recovery, as this was not established as a probability. Consequently, the defendant's appeal was allowed and the plaintiff's damages were revoked.
255:
51:
On appeal to the Lords, the question was whether the cause of the injury was the fall or the health authority's negligence in delaying treatment, since if the fall had caused the injury the negligence of the authority was irrelevant in regard to the plaintiff's disability. In the House of Lords, Lord
28:
case, about the nature of causation. It rejects the idea that people can sue doctors for the loss of a chance to get better, when doctors fail to do as good a job as they could have done.
36:
A 13-year-old boy fell out of a tree. He went to hospital where his hip was examined, but an incorrect diagnosis was made. After 5 days it was found that he was suffering from
43:
The issue was whether the claimant had satisfied the burden of proof in establishing that the defendant's actions had probably factually caused his injury.
453:
176:
289:
443:
199:
340:
204:
438:
274:
448:
284:
99:
299:
269:
315:
279:
244:
169:
86:: Irish case giving effect to the loss of a chance doctrine in a medical negligence (not binding as UK precedent)
370:
320:
224:
409:
229:
214:
209:
162:
144:
360:
294:
37:
234:
365:
350:
335:
219:
25:
375:
239:
432:
345:
74:
120:"Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1988] UKHL 1 (02 July 1988)"
385:
355:
119:
82:
254:
395:
390:
185:
416:
380:
89:
330:
325:
60:
This finding relies on the principle outlined by Lord
Diplock in
94:
158:
154:
78:, a recent case affirming this view of loss of a chance
308:
262:
192:
170:
21:Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority
8:
177:
163:
155:
111:
7:
14:
253:
454:1987 in United Kingdom case law
1:
145:"Hotson v East Berkshire AHA"
300:Courts of England and Wales
470:
444:English causation case law
16:1987 English tort law case
404:
251:
341:British Virgin Islands
439:English tort case law
449:House of Lords cases
62:Mallett v McMonagle
24:2 All ER 909 is an
205:Administrative law
38:avascular necrosis
426:
425:
461:
321:Northern Ireland
263:Further subjects
257:
179:
172:
165:
156:
149:
148:
141:
135:
134:
132:
130:
116:
26:English tort law
469:
468:
464:
463:
462:
460:
459:
458:
429:
428:
427:
422:
400:
376:Anglo-Saxon law
309:Related systems
304:
290:Civil procedure
275:Competition law
258:
249:
240:Retained EU law
200:UK Constitution
188:
183:
153:
152:
143:
142:
138:
128:
126:
118:
117:
113:
108:
70:
49:
34:
17:
12:
11:
5:
467:
465:
457:
456:
451:
446:
441:
431:
430:
424:
423:
421:
420:
413:
405:
402:
401:
399:
398:
393:
388:
383:
378:
373:
368:
363:
358:
353:
348:
343:
338:
333:
328:
323:
318:
312:
310:
306:
305:
303:
302:
297:
292:
287:
285:Commercial law
282:
277:
272:
266:
264:
260:
259:
252:
250:
248:
247:
242:
237:
232:
227:
222:
217:
212:
207:
202:
196:
194:
190:
189:
184:
182:
181:
174:
167:
159:
151:
150:
136:
124:www.bailii.org
110:
109:
107:
104:
103:
102:
100:Loss of chance
97:
92:
87:
79:
69:
66:
58:
57:
48:
45:
33:
30:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
466:
455:
452:
450:
447:
445:
442:
440:
437:
436:
434:
419:
418:
414:
412:
411:
407:
406:
403:
397:
394:
392:
389:
387:
384:
382:
379:
377:
374:
372:
371:United States
369:
367:
364:
362:
359:
357:
354:
352:
349:
347:
344:
342:
339:
337:
334:
332:
329:
327:
324:
322:
319:
317:
314:
313:
311:
307:
301:
298:
296:
293:
291:
288:
286:
283:
281:
278:
276:
273:
271:
268:
267:
265:
261:
256:
246:
243:
241:
238:
236:
233:
231:
228:
226:
223:
221:
218:
216:
213:
211:
208:
206:
203:
201:
198:
197:
195:
193:Core subjects
191:
187:
180:
175:
173:
168:
166:
161:
160:
157:
146:
140:
137:
125:
121:
115:
112:
105:
101:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
85:
84:
80:
77:
76:
75:Gregg v Scott
72:
71:
67:
65:
63:
55:
54:
53:
46:
44:
41:
39:
31:
29:
27:
23:
22:
415:
408:
230:Property law
215:Contract law
210:Criminal law
139:
127:. Retrieved
123:
114:
83:Philp v Ryan
81:
73:
61:
59:
50:
42:
35:
20:
19:
18:
396:Hue and cry
391:Bloody Code
361:New Zealand
270:Company law
186:English law
433:Categories
381:Common law
295:Family law
280:Labour law
106:References
90:Negligence
366:Singapore
351:Hong Kong
336:Australia
235:Trust law
410:Category
326:Scotland
245:Case law
220:Tort law
68:See also
47:Judgment
316:UK-wide
225:Privacy
417:Portal
386:Equity
346:Canada
356:India
331:Wales
129:4 May
32:Facts
131:2021
95:Tort
435::
122:.
178:e
171:t
164:v
147:.
133:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
