Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, 1957 WL 18238 (1957)

For educational use only

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee

Mixed Judicial Consideration

Court
Queen's Bench Division

Judgment Date
26 February 1957

Where Reported
[1957] 1 W.L.R. 582
[1957] 2 All E.R. 118
[1957] 2 WLUK 94
[1955-95] P.N.L.R. 7
(1957) 101 S.J. 357
[1957] C.L.Y. 2431

Subject
Negligence

Other related subjects

Health

Keywords
Bolam test; Clinical negligence; Common practice; Doctors; Duty to warn; Electroconvulsive therapy; Guidelines; Risk

Judge
McNair J

Case Digest
Summary
A doctor is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of
medical men skilled in that particular form of treatment. This case is the basis for the "Bolam test" in negligence to determine
the standard of reasonable care for doctors and other professionals.

Abstract
The plaintiff brought a claim for negligence against the defendant hospital.

The plaintiff sustained fractures of the acetabula during the course of electro-convulsive therapy treatment given him while he
was a voluntary patient at the defendants' mental hospital. He claimed damages against the hospital alleging that the defendants
were negligent (1) in failing to administer any relaxant drug prior to the passing of the current through his brain; (2) since they
had not administered such drug, in failing to provide at least some form of manual restraint or control beyond that given; and (3)
in failing to warn him of the risks involved in the treatment. Expert witnesses all agreed that there was a firm body of medical
opinion opposed to the use of relaxant drugs, and also that a number of competent practitioners considered that the less manual
restraint there was, the less was the risk of fracture. It was the practice of the defendants' doctors not to warn their patients of
the risks of the treatment (which they believed to be small) unless asked.

© 2023 Thomson Reuters. 1

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, 1957 WL 18238 (1957)

Held
Judgment for defendants.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendants. A doctor is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice
accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular form of treatment; nor is he negligent merely
because there is a body of opinion which would adopt a different technique. In deciding whether a doctor is negligent in failing
to warn a patient of the risks involved in a particular treatment, it is appropriate to consider firstly whether good medical practice
required that a warning should have been given to the patient before he submitted to the treatment, and, secondly, if a warning
had been given, what difference it would have made.

© 2023 Thomson Reuters. 2