Res ipsa loquitur meaning

Balance of probabilities The claimant is required to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant was negligent or failed to comply with their statutory duties. Succeeding on the balance of probabilities means demonstrating that something is more likely than not. If the claimant’s material is as consistent with negligence as with its absence, or with breach of duty as with none, the claim will not succeed. Where the defendant has been convicted of an offence arising from the alleged negligent conduct, a rebuttable presumption arises that the offence was committed. In such a situation, the burden of proof is reversed. It then falls to the defendant to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that there was no negligence...

Across the range of clinical negligence matters spanning ‘pure diagnosis’ to ‘pure treatment’, allegations arising from careless surgical performance almost invariably fall at the treatment end. That remains the position even when an operation is chiefly undertaken for diagnostic, rather than therapeutic, purposes. As a result, any impugned acts or omissions will be assessed by reference to the standard Bolam approach, tempered by Bolitho considerations. See Practice Note: Duty of care and breach in clinical negligence claims. Professional guidelines Clinical guidance issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) provides helpful evidence of the standards expected in surgery; this is explored further in the Practice Note: NICE Guidance. The Royal College of Surgeons likewise produces extensive materials on recognised surgical techniques and patient management, for example the Good Surgical Practice document. Alongside national guidance, NHS Trusts frequently issue local protocols on topics such as infection control, failed intubation, and prevention of venous thrombo-embolism. Departing from such guidelines or policies does not, of itself, amount to...

Khan v Meadows In Khan v Meadows, the Supreme Court outlined a framework for analysing the constituent parts needed to establish negligence, including the scope of duty and causation. For further guidance, including on the limits of the defendant’s duty of care, see Practice Note: Duty of care and breach in clinical negligence claims. Causation has two elements that a claimant must demonstrate: Is the loss a consequence of the defendant’s act or omission? (the factual causation question) Is any part of the harm unrecoverable because it is too remote, because there is another effective cause (including an intervening act that broke the chain of causation), or because the claimant has mitigated their loss or failed to avoid loss they could reasonably have avoided?...