Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118, [1957] 1
The plaintiff, suffering from mental illness, consented to electro convulsive therapy resulting in him suffering several fractures. He thereafter claimed damages against the hospital claiming that the treatment had been administered incorrectly and that he had not been advised of the risks.
The court found against the plaintiff, with the judge having directed the jury that (1) a doctor is not negligent, if he is acting in accordance with a practice accepted as a proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art; (2) the doctor could not be criticised if, believing the dangers involved in the treatment to be minimal, he did not stress them to the patient; (3) in order to recover damages for failure to give warning, the plaintiff must show not only that the failure was negligent but also that if he had been warned he would not have consented to the treatment.
This study area has been created by our experts to help students with Administrative Law Essay and Problem Questions. If you require further help with your question, why not order a fully customised model answer on which to base your assignment? Use our online order form to submit your request and you could have a complete model answer written to your specification within 24 hours.
