Professional Negligence Landmark Cases
Overview
Professional negligence occurs when a professional (such as a doctor, lawyer, accountant, architect, or engineer) fails to exercise the skill, care, or diligence reasonably expected of a competent professional in their field, resulting in loss or damage to their client.
Key Elements of Professional Negligence
Duty of Care – The professional owed the claimant a duty of care.
Breach of Duty – The professional failed to meet the required standard of care.
Causation – The breach caused damage or loss to the claimant.
Damages – The claimant suffered actual loss or injury.
Standard of Care
The standard is usually that of a reasonably competent professional in the relevant field, judged by the standards of the profession at the time of the alleged negligence.
Landmark Cases
1. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582
Facts:
A patient suffered injury during electroconvulsive therapy. The claimant alleged the doctor was negligent.
Legal Issue:
What standard of care applies to professionals?
Held:
The court established the “Bolam test”: A professional is not negligent if they acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of professionals skilled in that particular art, even if there is a contrary opinion.
Significance:
The Bolam test is the foundational standard for assessing professional negligence.
2. Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232
Facts:
The claimant alleged negligence against a doctor for failure to attend a child, leading to death.
Legal Issue:
Can a court reject expert opinion if it is not logically defensible?
Held:
The House of Lords modified Bolam, ruling that the court must be satisfied that the professional opinion relied upon is reasonable and responsible.
Significance:
Introduced the Bolitho addendum to Bolam, allowing courts to reject expert opinion that is illogical.
3. Whitehouse v Jordan [1981] 1 WLR 246
Facts:
A baby was injured during a difficult delivery. The question was whether the doctor was negligent.
Held:
The court held that in difficult or emergency situations, the professional standard may be more forgiving if the doctor acted in a way that was within a range of reasonable responses.
Significance:
Acknowledges that professional judgment in emergencies may differ but still can be non-negligent if reasonable.
4. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Facts:
A company relied on audited accounts which were negligently prepared. The question was whether the auditors owed a duty to investors.
Held:
Established the three-fold test for duty of care:
Foreseeability of harm
Proximity between parties
Fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty
Significance:
Clarified when professionals owe a duty of care beyond the immediate client.
5. Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465
Facts:
The claimant suffered loss due to negligent financial advice.
Held:
The House of Lords recognized liability for negligent misstatement causing pure economic loss, if there is a special relationship between the parties.
Significance:
Established liability for professional advice causing financial loss.
6. Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41
Facts:
A surgeon failed to warn a patient of a small risk of nerve damage, which materialized.
Held:
The House of Lords ruled that failure to warn was negligent and causative, even though the injury was rare.
Significance:
Established the importance of informed consent and liability for failure to warn.
7. Bolam Applied in Legal Profession: Hall v Simons [2000] 3 WLR 543
Facts:
Solicitors were alleged to have negligently advised clients.
Held:
The House of Lords confirmed that Bolam test applies to legal professionals but also recognized that certain legal standards of care differ from medical ones.
Significance:
Extended professional negligence principles to the legal profession.
Summary Table of Key Principles
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| Bolam v Friern | Standard is what a responsible body of professionals would do |
| Bolitho v City & Hackney | Courts can reject illogical professional opinion |
| Whitehouse v Jordan | Reasonable conduct in emergencies may not be negligent |
| Caparo v Dickman | Duty of care requires foreseeability, proximity, fairness |
| Hedley Byrne v Heller | Liability for negligent misstatements causing economic loss |
| Chester v Afshar | Duty to warn patients of risks; informed consent |
| Hall v Simons | Bolam applies to legal professionals |
Conclusion
Professional negligence law protects clients from substandard services but balances this against professional judgment and practical realities. The Bolam test, modified by Bolitho, remains central to assessing breach of duty, while Caparo frames duty of care scope. Other cases emphasize the importance of informed consent, economic loss, and profession-specific standards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments