Williams v Bermuda Hospital [2016] UKSC 4
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:17:37 UTC
KEY POINTS
- If the defendant's negligence materially contributed to the harm, they may be held liable, even if their actions were not the sole cause of the injury.
- In this case, the claimant's injury was caused by sepsis resulting from two factors: the hospital's negligent delay and the pre-existing sepsis that was already in progress. When multiple factors cumulatively cause an injury, it does not matter whether these factors operate concurrently or successively.
FACTS
- Mr. Williams went to the hospital with abdominal pain, but there were significant delays in the hospital's handling of his case, including a delayed CT scan and a delay in performing surgery for a suspected acute appendicitis.
- As a result of these delays, Mr. Williams developed sepsis caused by the ruptured appendix, leading to injuries to his heart and lungs.
- He filed a lawsuit against the hospital board responsible for managing the hospital, seeking damages for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of earnings, alleging that the complications were the result of negligent treatment delays.
Explore more about
Williams v Bermuda Hospital
COMMENTARY
- The decision reinforces the application of the material contribution doctrine, allowing claimants to seek compensation when a defendant's negligence significantly contributes to their harm, even in cases where pinpointing the exact cause may be challenging.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Gregg v Scott
In determining liability, the court uses a standard called the balance of probabilities. If something is more likely than not to have occurred, the court treats it as certain. However, when the court...
Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority
Plaintiff was injured and taken to hospital where there was a negligent failure to treat him. He later developed a more serious injury from the initial one, and the trial judge found that there was a...
Jones v Livox Quarries
A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent man, he might be hurt himself: and in his reckonings he must tak...
Barnett v Chelsea Hospital
The "but-for" test of causation asks whether, "but for" the defendant's negligence, the claimant's harm would have occurred. In other words, would the harm have occurred if the defendant had acted wi...
McLoughlin v O’Brian
Defendants' negligence caused a catastrophic road accident, focusing legal analysis on defining the duty of care and its boundaries to ensure justice. On assessing foreseeability regarding the plaint...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.