Judicial Reasoning and the Concept of Damage: Rethinking Medical Negligence Cases

Purshouse, C (2015) Judicial Reasoning and the Concept of Damage: Rethinking Medical Negligence Cases. Medical Law International, 15 (2-3). pp. 155-181.

Text Judicial Reasoning and the Concept of Damage – Rethinking Medical Negligence Cases.docx - Unspecified Download (157kB)

Abstract

Damage is the gist of the action in negligence but is often subsumed within other headings of this tort such as duty of care, quantum of damages and causation. This article examines three important decisions where new forms of damage, such as the costs of raising a healthy child or loss of autonomy, have been implicitly recognized or rejected – McFarlane v Tayside Health Board, Rees v Darlington and Chester v Afshar – and suggests that the lack of separate scrutiny of the damage concept in such cases is leading to poor reasoning and questionable results that threaten to undermine the coherence of the tort of negligence. Methods of restoring clarity to this tort are then addressed.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Tort, negligence, medical law, autonomy, reproduction, damage
Subjects:	?? KD ??
Depositing User:	Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited:	22 Feb 2016 11:47
Last Modified:	17 Dec 2022 01:17
DOI:	10.1177/0968533215619468
Related URLs:	Publisher
URI:	https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/2052159