← All Authorities
United States Leading Case breach standard of careprofessional negligence

Helling v Carey

83 Wn.2d 514 (1974)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtWashington Supreme Court
Year1974
StatusBinding authority

Summary

In medical malpractice, adherence to customary professional practice is not dispositive; a doctor may be negligent for failing to perform a glaucoma test on a young patient even if standard practice did not require it.

Key Principle

Medical malpractice; customary practice of profession not dispositive; failure to perform glaucoma test on young patient despite standard practice not to test

Area of Law

tort

Related Cases

Bird v DP (A Pseudonym) (2024) 98 ALJR 486

High Court of Australia held a religious organisation vicariously liable for sexual abuse by a priest, recognising a relationship akin to employment sufficient to ground vicarious liability.

Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd (2023) 278 CLR 99

High Court of Australia held that the peak indebtedness rule does not apply when assessing unfair preferences under s 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Kozarov v Victoria (2022) 275 CLR 115

An employer owes a duty to take reasonable steps to protect an employee from psychiatric injury caused by vicarious trauma, and may breach that duty by failing to act on obvious warning signs.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Helling v Carey and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Helling v Carey