840344
Description
Mind Map by Falaq Lall, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Falaq Lall
over 10 years ago
|
|
Gregg v Scott
- Dissenting
- Lord Nicholls
- Irrational and indefensible for a
patient to recover if initial
prospects are 55% but not 45%
- The loss of a 45%
chance is as real to the
claimant as a 55% chance
- The purposes of a doctor is
to safeguard prospects of
recovery
- If loss of prospects are not
reoverable, the the duty will
often serve no purpose
- Irrational and indefensible for a
patient to recover if initial
prospects are 55% but not 45%
- Lord Hope
- Claimant's best course of action
would have been for pain,
suffering and consequences of
the tumour.
- Loss of chance should
be allowed via
assessment of damages,
not through definition of
the damage suffered and
vice versa.
- Claimant's best course of action
would have been for pain,
suffering and consequences of
the tumour.
- Lord Nicholls
- Lord Phillips
- The claimant has not
lost his chance of
survival
- Statistical probabilities worked out
from large groups of people should not
be recognised as capable of being
'damage in negligence cases'
- In this case, the delay seemed to
have had no effect on the overal
prospects of survival (Gregg
responded well to treatment)
- The claimant has not
lost his chance of
survival
- Lord Hoffman
- Concerned to maintain
traditional 'all or nothing
- Defining loss of chance
cases would be
arbitrary and
unprincipled
- If there is no principled reason,
then loss of chance claims should
be left to parliament and not
attempted by common law
- Concerned to maintain
traditional 'all or nothing
- Baroness Hale
- Claims for a loss of an
outcome could be
reformulated as a claim for
a loss of chance of that
outcome
- Would be unfair
to defendants
- Claims for a loss of an
outcome could be
reformulated as a claim for
a loss of chance of that
outcome
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.