LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Goodwill v. British Pregnancy Advisory Service (1996)
Key Principle
  • A doctor does not owe a duty of care to third parties who are not identifiable at the time of the breach of duty.
Facts of the Case
  • Patient (M): Underwent a vasectomy performed by the defendant doctors.
  • Information Provided: M was told the vasectomy was successful and contraception was no longer needed.
  • Plaintiff: Was not M's partner at the time of the vasectomy but later began a sexual relationship with him.
  • Outcome: The Plaintiff became pregnant and sued the doctors.
Court Decision
  • The Court of Appeal ruled that the doctors were not liable.
  • The relationship between the doctors and potential future sexual partners of the patient was not sufficiently close to establish a duty of care.
Reasoning (Gibson LJ, referencing Hedley Byrne)
  • The doctors did not voluntarily assume responsibility to the plaintiff when advising the patient (M).
  • At the time of the vasectomy and advice, the doctors:
    • Had no knowledge of the plaintiff.
    • The plaintiff was not an existing partner.
    • The plaintiff was just a potential future sexual partner, part of a large, indeterminate class.
Picture
0 Comments