Professional Negligence Prosecutions
Overview
Professional negligence occurs when a professional (doctor, lawyer, accountant, engineer, etc.) fails to perform their duties to the standard expected, causing harm or loss to a client or third party. Unlike ordinary negligence, it involves breach of a specialized duty arising from a professional relationship.
Key Elements:
Duty of Care: Professional owed a duty to the client.
Breach of Standard: Failure to exercise the skill and care expected of a reasonably competent professional.
Causation: Breach caused harm or loss.
Damages: Client suffered quantifiable loss or injury.
Important Cases on Professional Negligence
1. Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) – Medical Negligence
Facts:
The claimant suffered injuries during electroconvulsive therapy without muscle relaxants. The question was whether the doctor was negligent.
Judgment:
The court held that a professional is not negligent if acting in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of professionals (“Bolam Test”).
Significance:
Established the standard for medical professional negligence.
Introduced the “Bolam Test” which assesses whether the professional acted in accordance with accepted practice.
2. Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman (1990) – Duty of Care
Facts:
Caparo sued auditors Dickman for inaccurate financial reports leading to investment loss.
Judgment:
The court established a three-part test for duty of care: foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty.
Significance:
Clarified criteria for establishing duty of care in professional negligence.
Important in auditing and accounting negligence claims.
3. R v. Adomako (1995) – Gross Negligence Manslaughter (Medical Profession)
Facts:
An anesthetist failed to notice a disconnected oxygen tube during surgery, resulting in the patient's death.
Judgment:
The House of Lords held that gross negligence causing death could result in manslaughter charges.
Significance:
Set precedent for criminal prosecution in cases of professional negligence causing death.
Differentiated between civil negligence and criminal gross negligence.
4. Henderson v. Merrett Syndicates Ltd. (1995) – Professional Negligence in Investment Advice
Facts:
Investors sued underwriting syndicates for negligent management of investments.
Judgment:
The House of Lords confirmed that professional advisors owe a duty of care to their clients for negligent advice causing economic loss.
Significance:
Confirmed liability in professional advice beyond direct contractual relationships.
Expanded scope of professional negligence in financial services.
5. Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority (1998) – Modification to Bolam Test
Facts:
Child died after doctors failed to intubate despite breathing difficulties.
Judgment:
The court held that expert opinion must be capable of withstanding logical analysis.
Significance:
Refined the Bolam test by requiring courts to scrutinize expert opinions.
Strengthened claimant’s position in medical negligence claims.
6. Chaudhry v. Prabhakar (1989) – Negligent Misstatement
Facts:
A friend gave investment advice negligently, leading to loss.
Judgment:
Court held that professionals or advisors owe a duty of care when giving advice on which others rely.
Significance:
Recognized negligent misstatement as a ground for professional negligence claims.
Relevant to consultants, lawyers, accountants.
7. R v. Barrow, Gooderham and Rowe (2015) – Corporate Negligence in Construction
Facts:
Construction company directors prosecuted for gross negligence causing death when building collapsed.
Judgment:
Directors were convicted under health and safety laws for failure to ensure safety standards.
Significance:
Showed that professionals in management roles can face criminal prosecution for negligence.
Emphasized corporate accountability for professional standards.
Summary of Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Standard of Care (Bolam Test) | Professionals are judged against accepted practices of their peer group. |
| Duty of Care (Caparo Test) | Duty depends on foreseeability, proximity, and fairness of imposing liability. |
| Gross Negligence (Criminal Liability) | When negligence is so severe that it constitutes a crime causing death or serious harm. |
| Negligent Misstatement | Liability for giving advice or information carelessly causing financial loss. |
| Scrutiny of Expert Opinion | Courts may reject expert opinions not logically defensible (Bolitho refinement). |
| Corporate Responsibility | Professionals in managerial positions can face prosecution for organizational negligence. |
Conclusion
Professional negligence prosecutions balance protecting clients from substandard professional services and recognizing the complexity of specialized fields. Civil liability is the norm, but criminal liability arises in cases of gross negligence causing serious harm or death.
These landmark cases provide the foundational legal tests and show the evolving nature of professional accountability both civilly and criminally.
RELATED Blog
0 comments