KECUAIAN

PERLANGGARAN TUGAS UTK

BERHATI-HATI

1
 SUBTOPIK
• Ujian yg digunakan
• Definisi orang yg munasabah
• Ukuran kewaspadaan defendan yg mahir
• Ukuran kewaspadaan defendan yg kurang
mahir
• Perkara-perkara yg diambil kira dlm
menentukan perlanggaran tugas utk
berhati-hati
• Rumusan

2
APAKAH TUJUAN
DIBUKTIKAN
PERLANGGARAN
TUGAS?
Ujian yg digunakan

BLYTH V. BIRMINGHAM
WATERWORKS

Alderson B

Ukuran kewaspadaan
seorang yg munasabah

4
• Alderson B;
• Negligence is the omission to do something
which a reasonable man, guided upon those
considerations which ordinarily regulate
the conduct of human affairs, would do, or
doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do.

5
Definisi orang yg munasabah
GLASGOW CORPORATION V. MUIR

Lord MacMillan : The standard of foresight of the

reasonable man is in one sense an impersonal test. It eliminates
the personal equation and is independent of the idiosyncracies
of the particular person whose conduct is in question….The
reasonable man is presumed to be free from over-apprehension
and from over confidence. But there is a sense in which the
standard of care of a reasonable man involves in its application
a subjective element. It is left to the judge to decide what, in
the circumstances of the particular case, the reasonable man
would have had in the contemplation and what accordingly the
party sought to be made liable,ought to have foreseen.

6
Samb

1. Ujian seorang yg munasabah ialah

satu ujian yg impersonal
2. Ujian seorang yg munasabah
melibatkan ujian yg objektif dan
subjektif

7
Samb.

• Ujian objektif
- dlm menentukan sama ada
terdapat perlanggaran tugas atau
tidak, ukuran yg sama digunakan iaitu
ukuran seorang yg munasabah

8
Samb.

• Ujian subjektif
- membenarkan hakim memberikan
ciri-ciri seorang yg munasabah yg
berbeza-beza mengikut fakta kes dgn
mengambil kira pengetahuan dan
kemahiran yg dimiliki oleh defendan

9
Ukuran kewaspadaan defendan yg mahir
LANPHIER V. PHIPOS
(1838) 8 C & P 475

Tindal CJ : Every person who enters into a learned profession

undertakes to bring to the exercise of it a reasonable degree of
care and skill. He does not undertake, if he is an attorney, that at
all events you shall gain your case, nor does a surgeon undertake
that he will perform a cure; nor does he undertake to use the
highest possible degree of skill. There may be persons who have
higher education and greater advantage than he has, but he
undertakes to bring a fair, reasonable and competent degree of
skill.

10
Samb.

BOLAM V. FRIERN HOSPITAL

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

McNair J : …The test is the standard of ordinary

skilled man exercising and professing to have that
special skill…A man need not possess the highest
expert skill.. it is sufficient if he exercises the
ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man
exercising that particular art.

11
 Cont.
• ..in the case of a medical man, negligence
means failure to act in accordance with
the standards of reasonably competent
medical men…there may be one or more
proper standards; if he conforms with one
of those proper standards, then he is not
negligent.

12
Cont..
• Mengikut kes BOLAM, a doctor was not
negligent if he had acted in accordance
with a practice accepted as proper by a
responsible body of medical men skilled in
that medical act merely because, there
was a body of opinion which would take a
contrary view (ie. There exists another
body professing and subscribing a
different opinion).

13
 Samb.

ROGERS V. WHITAKER

Kes Australia yg menolak prinsip kes BOLAM

Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson, Toohey & McHugh JJ : …Further, more
importantly, particularly in the field of non-disclose of risk and the
provision of advice and information, the BOLAM principle has been
discarded and, instead, the courts have adopted the principle that, while
evidence of acceptable practice is a useful guide for the courts, it is for
the court to adjudicate on what is appropriate standard of care after
giving weight to the paramount consideration that a person is entitled to
make his own decision about his life.

14
Samb.

…A finding of medical negligence may

be made even though the conduct of
the defendant was in accord with a
practice accepted at that time as
proper by a responsible body medical
opinion

15
Samb.
BOLITHO V. CITY AND HACKNEY HEALTH
AUTHORITY
[1997] 4 All ER 77

Kes England yg menolak prinsip kes BOLAM

Lord Browne-Wilkinson : In my view, the court is not bound
to hold that a defendant doctor escapes liability for
negligence treatment or diagnosis just because he leads
evidence from a number of medical experts who are
genuinely of opinion that the defendant’s treatment or
diagnosis accorded with sound medical practice.

16
Samb.
Kes-kes yg mengikut prinsip kes BOLAM :

WHITEHOUSE V. JORDAN
[1981] 1 All ER 267

MAYNARD V. WEST MITLANDS REGIONAL HEALTH

AUTHORITY
[1984] 1 WLR 634

SIDAWAY V. BENTHLEM ROYAL HOSPITAL GOVERNORS

[1985] 1 All ER 643

17
MONTGOMERY v LANARKSHIRE
HEALTH BOARD (2015) UKSC 11
• P was not told about the possibility of a Caesarean
section nor was she told that because she has
diabetes there was a 9-10 per cent risk of a
shoulder dystocia if she proceeded with a vaginal
birth. She went ahead with a natural delivery.
• The risk of shoulder dystocia materialized and
her son was born with complex disabilities

18
 MONTGOMERY
• P stated that is she had been told of
this risk and the option of a
Caesarean section, she would have
opted for that.

• She claimed damages in negligence

19
 MONTGOMERY
• Supreme Court:
• P should have been told of the risk and
alternative forms of birth.
• A doctor had a duty to take reasonable care to
ensure the patient is aware of any material risks
involved.
• A doctor must inform the patient of reasonable
alternative treatments or variations on
treatments.

20
 MONTGOMERY
• In this case, it was decided that a 9-10 per cent
chance of a serious disability was a risk a
reasonable woman in labour would attach
significance to.

• P should also have been told of the alternative of a

C-section which carried a smaller risk to the
mother and almost no risk to the baby.

21
 MONTGOMERY
• In the aspect of duty to inform,
Supreme Court unanimously rejected
the application of Bolam test because
it violated patient autonomy.

22
 Samb.
Kes-kes Malaysia yg mengikuti prinsip kes BOLAM

CHIN KEOW V. GOVT OF M’SIA(Chin Keow v Govt of Msia [1967] – Failure to inquire
on the medical history of the patient – whether the patient was allergic to any
drugs)

KEOW NAN SENG V. NAGAMAH & ORS (Kow Nan Seng v Nagamah & Ors [1982] – Failure to
ensure proper monitoring of blood circulation after plaster of paris has been applied)

HOR SAI HONG & ANOR V. UNIVERSITI HOSPITAL & ANOR

[2002] 5 MLJ 165

SOO FOOK MUN V. FOO FIO WA

[2001] 2 AMR 2205

UDHAYA KUMAR KARUPPUSAMY & ANOR V PENGUASA HOSPITAL DAERAH PONTIAN &
ORS
[2005] 1 CLJ 143

FOONG YEEN KENG V ASSUNTA HOSPITAL (M) SDN BHD & ANOR
[2006] 1 CLJ 608

23
UDHAYA KUMAR KARUPPUSAMY & ANOR V PENGUASA HOSPITAL
DAERAH PONTIAN & ORS
[2005] 1 CLJ 143

FOONG YEEN KENG V ASSUNTA HOSPITAL (M) SDN BHD & ANOR
[2006] 1 CLJ 608

24
Kes-kes Malaysia yg menerima pakai
prinsip kes ROGERS

KAMALAN A/P RAMAN & ORS V EASTERN

PLANTATION AGENCY (JOHORE) SDN BHD
[1997] 5 CLJ 250

TAN AH KAU V THE GOVERNMENT OF

MALAYSIA
[1997] 2 CLJ SUPP 168

25
 TAN AH KAU V THE GOVERNMENT
OF MALAYSIA
[1997] 2 CLJ SUPP 168
• Plaintif dalam kes ini telah membawa tuntutan
kecuaian terhadap defendan kerana mendakwa
bahawa, doktor telah inter alia gagal memaklumkan
kepadanya mengenai risiko yang sedia ada pada
pembedahan yang dicadangkan.
• Plaintif menyatakan bahawa sekiranya beliau telah
dimaklumkan mengenai risiko tersebut beliau tidak
akan memberi keizinan untuk menjalani
pembedahan itu

26
• Hakim Low Hop Bing telah mengaplikasikan Rogers
v Whittaker:

Adalah merupakan tanggungjawab seorang doktor

untuk memberi amaran kepada pesakit mengenai
apa-apa risiko yang penting atau material. Ini
terutama sekali sekiranya pesakit akan
menganggap risiko itu adalah signifikan sekiranya
beliau dimaklumkan tentangnya.

27
FOO FIO NA V DR. SOO FOOK MUN &
ANOR
[2007] 1 CLJ 229 – FED CT

ISU : whether the BOLAM test enunciated

in BOLAM V FRIERN HOSPITAL
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE in the area
of medical evidence should apply in relation
to all aspects of medical negligence?

28
Samb.
Siti Norma Yaakob FCJ : mengambilkira autoriti-autoriti,
terdapat keperluan di pihak pengamal-pengamal perubatan
profesion perubatan utk bertanggungjawab atas kesilapan-
kesialapan mereka, jika ia berlaku, sepertimana halnya dgn
profesion-profesion yg lain. Dgn berbuat demikian, orang
ramai yg terlibat dgn kes-kes kecuaian perubatan boleh
mendapat nasihat profesional yg leih baik dan keterangan-
keterangan boleh dikemukakan yg dapat membantu
mahkamah dlm pertimbangannya. Atas dasar ini, kami
berpendapat bahawa dalam milenia ini ujian ROGERS v
WHITAKER berupaya menjadi ujian yg lebih viable dan
sesuai berbanding ujian BOLAM.

29
 LECHEMANAVASAGAR S
KARUPPIAH V DR. THOMAS YAU
PAK CHENK & ANOR
[2008] 3 CLJ 76

Mengikut keputusan kes BOLITHO.

30
AHMAD FAISAL HILMIE ABD RAZAK V
DR MUHD RUZAIMI ABD RAZAK &
YANG LAIN
[2016] MLRHU 307

Mahkamah telah menerima pakai prinsip yang

diutarakan dalam kes BOLAM bagi defendan ynag
berkemahiran di mana mahkamah bersetuju dengan
hujah defendan-defendan bahawa mereka telah
berjaya membuktikan bahawa plaintif telah dirawat
dengan sewajarnya melalui prosedur pembedahan
'corrective osteotomy and k-wire" yang betul dan
mengikut tatacara amalan perubatan yang biasa
dipakai.
 Bolam + Bolitho
• ZULHASNIMAR BT HASAN BASRI
& ANOR V DR KUPPU VELUMANI P
& ORS [2017]

32
 Zulhasnimar..
• The decision of this Court in Foo Fio Na
must necessarily be limited only to the
duty to advise of risks, this is because in
coming to the said decision, it had made
specific reference to Rogers v Whitaker,
acknowledging it to be the applicable test.

33
 Zulhasnimar..
• This Court in Foo Fio Na dealt only
with a medical practitioner’s duty to
advise of risks associated with a
proposed treatment. It did not deal
with the standard of care expected
in respect of either diagnosis or
treatment…”

34
 Zulhasnimar..

The Federal Court thus unanimously held that:

“The test propounded by the Australian case in Rogers v

Whitaker and followed by this Court in Foo Fio Na in
regard to standard of care in medical negligence is
restricted only to the duty to advise of risks associated
with any proposed treatment and does not extend to
diagnosis or treatment. With regard to the standard of
care for diagnosis or treatment, the Bolam test still
applies, subject to qualifications as decided by the House
of Lords in Bolitho.”

35
Tahap kewaspadaan Defendan yang
kurang mahir
• Standard of care imposed is only
that of a reasonably skilled member
of the profession; the Df is not
required to be a genius, or possess a
skill way beyond those normally to be
expected.

36
 Cont.
• Eg. A junior doctor is not expected
to have the same level of skill as a
consultant.
• BUT is expected to be as competent
as an average junior doctor.

37
Cont.

• Seseorang yg tidak mahir tidak boleh

dianggap mempunyai ciri-ciri seorang yg
mahir atau pakar ketika melakukan sesuatu
perkara.

WELL V. COOPER

38
• The defendant was only required to
show the standard of care of a
normal DIY enthusiast, not that of a
qualified carpenter

39
 Cont.
• Held; The Df(a carpenter) had done
the work as well as any ordinary
carpenter would,…therefore had
exercised such care as was required
of him.
• He was not liable for the Pl’s injury.

40
 Samb.

NETTLESHIP V. WESTON
[1971] 2 QB 691

Lord Denning : The standard of care …is measured

objectively by the care to be expected of an
experienced skilled and careful driver.

Salmond J : …As a rule, the driver’s personal

idiosyncracy is not relevant circumstances

41
Samb.

NG PENG HONG V. NG SHAW CHINO

& ANOR

The standard to be applied not that of

the perfect driver but a driver using
ordinary care & skill.

42
Perkara-perkara yg diambil kira dlm menentukan
perlanggaran tugas utk berhati-hati

• Besarnya kemungkinan berlakunya risiko

BOLTON V. STONE

Lord Oaksey : An ordinary, careful man does not take

precautions against every foreseeable risk. He can, of course,
foresee the possibility of many risks, but life would be almost
impossible if he were to attempt to take precautions against
every risks which he can foresee. He takes precautions against
risks which are reasonably likely to happen.

43
 BOLTON V. STONE
• LORD REID: On the whole of that part of the road
where the cricket ball could fall there would be often
nobody and seldom any great number of people. It
follows that the chance of a person ever being struck
even in a long period of years was very small. The test to
be applied is whether the risk of damage to a person on
the road was so small that a reasonable man in the in the
position of the appellants, considering the matter from
the point of view of safety, would have thought it right
to refrain from taking steps to prevent the danger.

44
• A greater possibility of harm is
required before the duty is breached

45
Samb.

HILDER V. ASSOCIATED
PORTLAND CEMENT

PARIS V. STEPNEY BOROUGH

COUNCIL

46
 Samb.
• Belanja & keupayaan utk mengatasi risiko
- sekiranya perbelanjaan yg terlibat utk
mengatasi risiko itu adalah terlalu tinggi dan
kemungkinan risiko itu akan berlaku adalah kecil,
tiada perlanggaran tugas jika defendan tidak
mengambil langkah berhati-hati bagi mengatasi risiko
tersebut.

LATIMER V. AEC

47
LORD PORTER: In my view, in these circumstances, the
appellant has not established that a reasonably careful
employer should have shut down the works, or that the
respondents ought to have taken the drastic step of closing
the factory.

LORD TUCKER: The only Q was: Has it been proved the floor
was so slippery that, remedial steps not being possible, a
reasonably prudent employer would have closed down the
factory rather than allow his employees to run the risks
involved in continuing work?

48
Samb.

THE WAGON MOUND (NO 2)

A reasonable man may ignore a very small risk if there is a valid

reason for doing so, but he should not ignore a small risk if the
elimination of that risk is a simple and cheap matter. The rule to
be that a reasonable person would only neglect a risk of a small
magnitude if he had some valid reason for doing so, eg. that it
would involve considerable expense to eliminate the risk

49
Samb.

• Kepentingan matlamat yg hendak dicapai

- langkah berhati-hati yg diambil hendaklah
diseimbangkan dgn matlamat yg hendak
dicapai

50
Samb.

WATT V. HERTFORDSHIRE
COUNTY COUNCIL

WARD V. LONDON CITY COUNCIL

[1938] 2 All ER 341

51
 WATT V. HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY
COUNCIL

SINGLETON LJ: There was a real emergency; the woman was

under a heavy vehicle; these men in the fire service thought
they ought to go promptly and to take a lifting jack, and
they did so. Most unfortunately this accident happened.

DENNING LJ: it is well settled law that in measuring due care

you must balance the risk against the measures necessary
to eliminate the risk….In this case the risk involved in
sending out the lorry was not so great as to prohibit the
attempt to save life…it is always a Q of balancing the risk
against the end.

52
Samb.
• Pengaruh amalan biasa yg diterima
- jika defendan mengikuti perkara-
perkara / amalan-amalan biasa yg diterima
pakai dlm sesuatu bidang, defendan tidak
melakukan perlanggaran tugas jika
kecederaan berlaku dgn syarat amalan
tersebut tidak berbahaya

53
Samb.

GENERAL CLEANING
CONTRACTORS V. CHRISMAS

54
Samb.
• Pengetahuan semasa
- defendan tidak melakukan
perlanggaran tugas jika dia bertindak
berdasarkan kpd pengetahuan semasa
dlm sesuatu bidang

ROE V. MINISTER OF HEALTH

55
 Roe..
• DENNING LJ: We must not look at
the 1947 accident with 1954
spectacles. …But if after this if the
hospitals were to continue the
practice, they could not complain if
they were found guilty of negligence.

56
57