General Cases >> Negligence >> Case 1 / Case 2 / Case 3 / Case 4 / Case 5 / Case 6 / Case 7 / Case 8

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee 1957 - Negligence case

Court Decision

This case was determined after hearing the evidence from peer review, whereby professionals in the same field or specialty were called upon by the Court to give evidence in the case. The Court made its decision based on this evidence. The term 'Bolam test' arose from this case, so that in cases requiring a decision on whether carelessness has occurred, peer review will be used to assess whether there has been an unacceptable lowering of medical standards.

With regards to points i) and ii), the evidence was that, while some doctors would have thought them necessary, many others did not. Also for point iii), Mr Bolam failed in his argument that he should have been warned of the risks.

The judge found that the doctor was not guilty of negligence for he acted:

"...in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men, skilled in that particular area. A man is not negligent, if he is acting in accordance with such a practice, merely because there is a body of opinion who would take a contrary view."

It is important is to consider what was the accepted practice at that time? If this same event were to occur today, then the standards set would be according to the practice of today.

Back