← All Authorities
United Kingdom professional negligence

Maynard v West Midlands Regional Health Authority

[1984] 1 WLR 634
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtUK House of Lords
Year1984
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A doctor is not negligent merely by preferring one of two accepted schools of medical thought, even if a diagnosis proves wrong; Bolam applied to diagnosis.

Key Principle

Medical negligence; where two schools of thought exist, selecting one is not negligent; Bolam applied to diagnosis; Hodgkin's disease misdiagnosis

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 Maynard v West Midlands Regional Health Authority and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Maynard v West Midlands Region...