Examination Timing: 00H09M58S
A man went to the emergency department of a hospital (the "defendant") with signs of an allergic reaction. The man's face was swollen, eyes barely able to open, and he was struggling to breathe. A doctor believed the man had been stung by a bee and administered some antihistamine. An hour later, the man died. It transpired that the man had been bitten and poisoned by a rare and deadly snake, for which there is no antidote. The man's wife (the "claimant") sued the defendant.
Did the defendant cause the man's death?
< Previous
Your selected option: D
Next >
The defendant is not liable, as their negligence did not cause the man's death. Even if the doctor had treated the man with proper care, he would still have died from the poisoning as there is no antidote for this particular venom. The claimant's claim would therefore fail. This is similar to the principle established in Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428. Key Point: Causation in negligence requires showing that the breach directly caused the harm. If the harm would have occurred regardless of the breach, liability does not follow.
Collect Question
userContent
