Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Hunter vs Hanley 1955
10 Answers
Hi, I need advice please. In Scotland My neighbour is trying to take NHS to court due to negligence....a shocking tale to say the least. She received Legal Aid until the point where she was ready to take them to court however, it has been refused several times as it does not correspond with Hunter vs Hanley 1955. Her situation began in 2006 and is ongoing. Can anyone help me find the Actual Hunter vs Hanley report and explain to me why a case from over 50 years ago can be relevant to present day. the Procedures my neighbour underwent where not even available in 1955. Help please.x
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Here's the relevant quote from Lord Clyde:
"To establish liability by a doctor where departure from normal practice is alleged, three facts require to be established. First of all it must be proved that there is a usual and normal practice; secondly it must be proved that the defender has not adopted that practice; and thirdly (and this is of crucial...
"To establish liability by a doctor where departure from normal practice is alleged, three facts require to be established. First of all it must be proved that there is a usual and normal practice; secondly it must be proved that the defender has not adopted that practice; and thirdly (and this is of crucial...
00:59 Wed 01st Feb 2012
I don't think that any of our legal experts are on-line just now.
I googled the names and came up with this page of results - http://www.google.co....cial&client=firefox-a (I hope that it works)
You may have already tried this but it might give you something to work on until somebody can help you.
Good luck - I was going to say 'have fun' but legal documents are written in a strange language and you will not be having fun !
I googled the names and came up with this page of results - http://www.google.co....cial&client=firefox-a (I hope that it works)
You may have already tried this but it might give you something to work on until somebody can help you.
Good luck - I was going to say 'have fun' but legal documents are written in a strange language and you will not be having fun !
it was about principles of legal liabililty, not about individual treatments.
"To establish liability by a doctor where deviation from normal practice is alleged, three facts require to be established. First of all it must be proved that there is a usual and normal practice; secondly it must be proved that the defender has not adopted that practice; and thirdly (and this is of crucial importance) it must be established that the course the doctor adopted is one which no professional man of ordinary skill would have taken if he had been acting with ordinary care."
Click on the first link on the page wolf63 gave you to read it all.
"To establish liability by a doctor where deviation from normal practice is alleged, three facts require to be established. First of all it must be proved that there is a usual and normal practice; secondly it must be proved that the defender has not adopted that practice; and thirdly (and this is of crucial importance) it must be established that the course the doctor adopted is one which no professional man of ordinary skill would have taken if he had been acting with ordinary care."
Click on the first link on the page wolf63 gave you to read it all.
Here's the relevant quote from Lord Clyde:
"To establish liability by a doctor where departure from normal practice is alleged, three facts require to be established. First of all it must be proved that there is a usual and normal practice; secondly it must be proved that the defender has not adopted that practice; and thirdly (and this is of crucial importance) it must be established that the course the doctor adopted is one which no professional man of ordinary skill would have taken if he had been acting with ordinary care"
Source:
http://www.lemac.co.u...edical_Negligence.htm
You ask "why a case from over 50 years ago can be relevant to present day". That's because Scottish law (as in the rest of UK) isn't determined solely by Parliament. It is also determined by precedents, whereby a higher court has been asked to rule upon the interpretation of statutes (and/or of 'common law'). Once a precedent has been established that precedent, in itself, effectively becomes part of the law. (There may be circumstances where a court can rule that a precedent is no longer valid - e.g. through advances in technology or through changes in society - but unless a specific reason for overturning a precedent can be found, that precedent will always stand). Some precedents are centuries old but they remain as valid, as part of our laws, as on the days when they were determined by the courts.
Chris
"To establish liability by a doctor where departure from normal practice is alleged, three facts require to be established. First of all it must be proved that there is a usual and normal practice; secondly it must be proved that the defender has not adopted that practice; and thirdly (and this is of crucial importance) it must be established that the course the doctor adopted is one which no professional man of ordinary skill would have taken if he had been acting with ordinary care"
Source:
http://www.lemac.co.u...edical_Negligence.htm
You ask "why a case from over 50 years ago can be relevant to present day". That's because Scottish law (as in the rest of UK) isn't determined solely by Parliament. It is also determined by precedents, whereby a higher court has been asked to rule upon the interpretation of statutes (and/or of 'common law'). Once a precedent has been established that precedent, in itself, effectively becomes part of the law. (There may be circumstances where a court can rule that a precedent is no longer valid - e.g. through advances in technology or through changes in society - but unless a specific reason for overturning a precedent can be found, that precedent will always stand). Some precedents are centuries old but they remain as valid, as part of our laws, as on the days when they were determined by the courts.
Chris
The Hunter v Hamley test is a well-known test of Clinical negligence, and the test is usually in three parts, which are:
1/ That there is a procedure.
2/ That procedure has not been followed.
3/ The procedure followed was such that no ordinary professional person would follow if taking ordinary care.
Any solicitor with an interest in clinical negligence should be able to assist.
Previous decisions made set a legal precedent, which may be binding or persuasive to a Judge.
1/ That there is a procedure.
2/ That procedure has not been followed.
3/ The procedure followed was such that no ordinary professional person would follow if taking ordinary care.
Any solicitor with an interest in clinical negligence should be able to assist.
Previous decisions made set a legal precedent, which may be binding or persuasive to a Judge.
very nice answer tony - except that the exact same answer was given twice yesterday (and is even the "favourite" answer) Did you think the poster couldn't read them or something?
I'm sure you have loads of legal knowledge, but you make it look like you are just trying to make yourself look intelligent by just replaying answers others have already given!
I'm sure you have loads of legal knowledge, but you make it look like you are just trying to make yourself look intelligent by just replaying answers others have already given!
1 to 10 of 10
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Do You All Know About "Amer Craft...
Travel3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Food & Drink25 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.