This site uses cookies.

Note on the Supreme Court Judgment in Darnley - Jeremy Pendlebury, 7BR

05/12/18. The Supreme Court, per the judgment of Lord Lloyd-Jones (with whom Lady Hale and Lords, Reed, Kerr and Hodge all agreed), allowed the appeal by Michael Darnley from the dismissal by the Court of Appeal of his appeal from the dismissal of his claim by the trial judge. Mr. Darnley will now recover damages for the devastating brain damage he suffered, consequent upon the progression of a bleed on the brain he suffered in an assault on the afternoon of 17 May 2010.

Mr. Darnley attended the A&E department of the Mayday Hospital, Croydon on the evening of 17 May with his friend Mr. Tubman and informed the receptionist of the assault and head injury and that he was feeling unwell and needed to see someone. He was wrongly told the wait would be four to five hours – he should have been told he would be seen by a triage nurse within 30 minutes. He waited for 19 minutes and then went home before being seen, because he felt so unwell that all he wanted to do was take some painkillers and go to bed. Whilst at home he suffered a deterioration, caused by a progression of the bleed, and despite prompt surgery he suffered permanent serious brain damage.

The Supreme Court held: -
(i) the factual circumstances of the case came within an existing category of a duty of care between a hospital and a patient; and hence the Mayday hospital owed Mr. Darnley a common law duty of care;

(ii) that common law duty included the giving of reasonably accurate information as to waiting times;
(ii) that it was negligent of the receptionist (the employee of the Mayday Hospital) to inform Mr. Darnley that he would have to wait for up to four to five hours before being seen, in the circumstances that the receptionists knew that the correct information was that he could expect to be seen by a triage nurse within 30 minutes;

(iii) on the findings by the trial judge, the Supreme Court held that causation of damage was therefore established, the findings being: -
(a) that had Mr. Darnley been given the correct information, he would have remained within the hospital setting; and
(b) that it...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/selimaksan

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.