- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Clark v MacLennan (1983) - Study Guide
Core Principle: A deviation from accepted medical practice requires robust justification.
I. Case Facts:
Core Principle: A deviation from accepted medical practice requires robust justification.
I. Case Facts:
- Plaintiff: Developed stress incontinence post-childbirth.
- Treatment: Anterior colporrhaphy performed 4 weeks after delivery.
- Complications: Operation failed, requiring two further unsuccessful surgeries.
- Negligence Claim: Failure to adhere to standard practice of waiting 3 months post-delivery.
- Liability: Defendants liable for negligence due to unjustified departure from standard practice.
- Justification Requirement: A doctor departing from an orthodox treatment course must demonstrate:
- All relevant factors were considered (known or should have been known).
- The departure is justifiable based on those factors.
- Clinical judgement alone is insufficient justification.
- Mustill LJ's View: Clark v MacLennan establishes a presumption of negligence when standard practice is deviated from.
- Rebuttal: The defendant must rebut this presumption by justifying their actions.
- Burden of Proof: The burden of proof does not shift to the defendant (similar to res ipsa loquitur). The plaintiff still needs to prove negligence, but the unexcused deviation helps them make their case.
0 Comments