- Published on
KembaraXtra -Case Law- Wilsher v Essex AHA (1988)
1. Core Principle: Standard of Care
1. Core Principle: Standard of Care
- The Wilsher case primarily addresses the standard of care expected of a doctor in negligence claims.
- The standard of care is determined by the post the doctor occupies, not by the doctor's level of training or experience.
- This means a junior doctor in a specific role is held to the standard of a reasonably competent doctor in that same role, regardless of their actual experience.
- The Court of Appeal rejected an "individualized standard" of care that would take into account the doctor's specific training level.
- Mustill LJ emphasized that the duty of care relates to the act performed, not the individual performing it.
- Important to note: The House of Lords did not rule on the standard of care issue in Wilsher. Their focus was solely on causation.
- Hospitals and healthcare providers need to ensure that doctors are adequately supervised and supported within their roles.
- Doctors should only undertake tasks that they are competent to perform, or have adequate supervision to do so.
- Objective vs. Subjective Standard: Wilsher reinforces the objective standard of care in medical negligence. The doctor's personal capabilities are less relevant than the expectations of the role.
- Context: This case should be studied in conjunction with other cases on medical negligence to get a broader understanding.
0 Comments