Study Notes
Key Case | Roe v Minister of Health (1954) | Negligence - Breach of Duty - Professional
- Level:
- A-Level, BTEC National
- Board:
- AQA, Edexcel, OCR, IB, Eduqas, WJEC
Last updated 30 Sept 2020
In this case it was held that when determining whether a professional body has met the standard of care the court should look to see if there is a supportive body of opinion and practice at that time.
CASE SUMMARY
Claimant: Mrs Roe - the injured party
Defendant: Minister of Health – on behalf of a hospital practice
Facts: A hospital kept anaesthetic in glass ampules stored in saline for hygiene reasons, this was common practice at the time. When the anaesthetic was used during an operation it led to the permanent paralysis of a patient as the saline had seeped into the anaesthetic due to tiny cracks in the glass ampules that could not be seen by the naked eye.
Outcome: Not liable
Legal principle: The hospital had met the standard of care expected as they had not diverted from standard practice at that time. The incident occurred in 1947 and Lord Denning aptly quoted ‘the court must not look at the 1947 accident with 1954 spectacles’.