ACCA LW · Chapter 5 · Question 5 of 11
A patient attended hospital with severe vomiting and was sent home without examination by the doctor on duty. He died of arsenic poisoning that could not have been treated in time even if he had been examined. In Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital, why did the claim fail?
Test yourself: pick an answer
Reveal answer & explanation
Correct answer: D) The breach of duty was not the factual cause of the death under the 'but for' test
Explanation
Although the doctor breached his duty by failing to examine the patient, the patient would have died anyway. The 'but for' test asks whether the harm would have occurred but for the defendant's breach; here it would have, so causation was not established. The case is a standard illustration of factual causation.
More The law of torts and professional negligence MCQs
- Q7A claimant suffers a minor burn caused by the defendant's negligence. Because of a pre-existing condition, the burn triggers cancer and…
- Q8A claimant was injured partly through the defendant's negligence and partly through failing to wear a seat belt. Under the Law Reform…
- Q9In Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners, the House of Lords recognised that a duty of care could arise in respect of negligent…
- Q10An investor bought shares in a company relying on audited accounts that negligently overstated profits, and suffered a loss. Applying…
- Q11In which situation does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur most commonly assist a claimant in negligence?
