header-logo header-logo

01 March 2024 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 8061 / Categories: Features , Personal injury , Damages , National Health Service
printer mail-detail

Medical negligence: secondary victims?

161581
Nicholas Dobson considers the debate on the extension of the duty of care to patients’ relatives
  • Doctors have no duty of care to close relatives of their patients to protect the relatives from risk of illness by witnessing the death or serious illness of those patients from a medical condition which the doctor had negligently failed to diagnose and treat.
  • Covers Paul and another v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust.

To witness the death or serious injury of someone close and loved must be a deeply harrowing experience. As the late Queen Elizabeth observed to families bereaved by the September 11 terror attacks in 2001: ‘Grief is the price we pay for love.’ But if medically negligent treatment given by doctors results in psychological or other injury to the patient’s relatives, do doctors have a duty of care to those relatives?

This was the thorny question faced by a panel of seven justices in the Supreme Court in May 2023 and on 11 January 2024, when judgment was given in Paul

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll