Standard of care in professional negligence claims

Published by a ��Ӱ�� Dispute Resolution expert

Practice notes

Standard of care in professional negligence claims

Published by a ��Ӱ�� Dispute Resolution expert

Practice notes

This Practice Note considers the standard of care in professional negligence claims, originally formulated in Bolam v Friern Hospital as being that of ‘reasonable skill and care’ and how the test is applied in practice; the relevance of the Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health ‘material risk’ question, the duty to warn and the relevance of industry opinion.

It also considers some examples from the construction, financial services and accountancy industries and as regards the position of trade unions. Given the wealth of case law in this area, the standard of care expected of solicitors and barristers is considered in Practice Note: Standard of care—solicitors and barristers.

Reasonable skill and care—the ‘Bolam test’

The 1957 decision in Bolam v Friern Hospital has long stood as the accepted standard of care in professional negligence cases, as being that of ‘reasonable skill and care’.

In Bolam, McNair J said that:

‘…where you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence, then the test as to whether there has been negligence or not is not the

Jurisdiction(s):

United Kingdom

Key definition:

Negligence definition

What does Negligence mean?

Negligence is 'the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do' (Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Exch 781, at p 784). It is accepted that the test for breach of duty is objective, in the sense that the individual character and mental and physical features of the particular defendant are usually irrelevant.

��Ӱ��