On the other hand, the standard of care required from experts seems to be a lot rigid, in contrast. In Vowles v Evans (2003) where, because of the decision of the referee a rugby player was wounded the court held that the standard of care expected from a professional is the same standard expected of all professionals in their respective fields of expertise. Similarly, in Gates v McKenna (1998) , the court found liability for a state hypnotist for failing in taking reasonable precaution to prevent psychiatrist injury to his audience. Following, in Watson v Gray (1998), the accused, was judged on the grounds, that if a reasonable professional footballer knew that his actions a carried a significant risk of injury, and still went on with them; them liability could arise.
Another subjective element which greatly influences the objective reasonable person’s standard of care is, in assessing defendants who exercise a special skill or trade; because of this, the courts have accepted that there may exist a difference of opinion in a given trade and provided accordingly. In the HOL decision in Bolam (1957) , where a psychiatric patient suffered broken …show more content…
However, in situations where a standard practice become obsolete and dangerous, liability may not lie at first, but once the risk is suspected, liability may arise. Roe v Minister of Health (1954) , clearly laid down that the accused actions must be adjudicated according the standard procedure used at the time of the incident. But in N v UK Medical Research Council (1996) , the Queen’s Bench Division held that once the defendants knew that a specific procedure carried risk of harm and failed to investigate the matter further, was negligent itself, but the failure to stop the practice from continuing, once the knowledge of the risk existed was also
Another subjective element which greatly influences the objective reasonable person’s standard of care is, in assessing defendants who exercise a special skill or trade; because of this, the courts have accepted that there may exist a difference of opinion in a given trade and provided accordingly. In the HOL decision in Bolam (1957) , where a psychiatric patient suffered broken …show more content…
However, in situations where a standard practice become obsolete and dangerous, liability may not lie at first, but once the risk is suspected, liability may arise. Roe v Minister of Health (1954) , clearly laid down that the accused actions must be adjudicated according the standard procedure used at the time of the incident. But in N v UK Medical Research Council (1996) , the Queen’s Bench Division held that once the defendants knew that a specific procedure carried risk of harm and failed to investigate the matter further, was negligent itself, but the failure to stop the practice from continuing, once the knowledge of the risk existed was also