Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018]
Share
Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50 is a Supreme Court case concerning the duty of care owed by medical institutions and their staff, including non-medical personnel, in providing accurate information to patients seeking medical assistance.
Michael Mark Junior Darnley (the appellant) was struck on the head and brought to the Accident and Emergency (A&E) Department at Mayday Hospital, managed by Croydon Health Services NHS Trust (the respondent). The appellant informed the A&E receptionist that he had a head injury and felt very unwell, expressing the need for urgent attention. The receptionist incorrectly informed him that he would have to wait for four to five hours, leading the appellant to leave after 19 minutes. Later, the appellant became distressed, and an ambulance was called. A CT scan revealed a serious condition, resulting in permanent brain damage.
The appellant filed a claim against the NHS Trust, alleging a breach of duty by the reception staff in providing misleading information and failure to assess him for priority triage. The High Court dismissed the claim, and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, stating no duty was owed. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal, remitting the case for damages assessment. The Court held that the case fell within an established category of duty of care. Hospitals owe a duty to individuals presenting themselves at the casualty department, aiming to take reasonable care not to cause physical injury to the patient. The duty of care extends to a duty to take reasonable care not to provide misleading information that may foreseeably cause physical injury. Both medical and non-medical staff, including receptionists, are subject to this duty.
Receptionists, as the first point of contact for individuals seeking medical assistance, are expected to take reasonable care not to provide misleading advice about the availability of medical assistance. The standard required is that of an averagely competent and well-informed person performing the function of a receptionist at a department providing emergency medical care. The receptionist's provision of incomplete and misleading information about waiting times was found to be negligent. The Court emphasised that it is not unreasonable to require receptionists to take reasonable care not to provide misleading information.
The Court rejected the argument that Darnley's decision to leave the hospital broke the chain of causation. His departure was reasonably foreseeable and influenced by the misleading information, indicating a continuous sequence leading to the injury.
As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding the NHS Trust liable for the negligent breach of duty and remitted the case for the assessment of damages in the Queen's Bench Division. This case underscores the duty of care owed by medical institutions and their staff, including non-medical personnel, in providing accurate information to patients seeking medical assistance.
Michael Mark Junior Darnley (the appellant) was struck on the head and brought to the Accident and Emergency (A&E) Department at Mayday Hospital, managed by Croydon Health Services NHS Trust (the respondent). The appellant informed the A&E receptionist that he had a head injury and felt very unwell, expressing the need for urgent attention. The receptionist incorrectly informed him that he would have to wait for four to five hours, leading the appellant to leave after 19 minutes. Later, the appellant became distressed, and an ambulance was called. A CT scan revealed a serious condition, resulting in permanent brain damage.
The appellant filed a claim against the NHS Trust, alleging a breach of duty by the reception staff in providing misleading information and failure to assess him for priority triage. The High Court dismissed the claim, and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, stating no duty was owed. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal, remitting the case for damages assessment. The Court held that the case fell within an established category of duty of care. Hospitals owe a duty to individuals presenting themselves at the casualty department, aiming to take reasonable care not to cause physical injury to the patient. The duty of care extends to a duty to take reasonable care not to provide misleading information that may foreseeably cause physical injury. Both medical and non-medical staff, including receptionists, are subject to this duty.
Receptionists, as the first point of contact for individuals seeking medical assistance, are expected to take reasonable care not to provide misleading advice about the availability of medical assistance. The standard required is that of an averagely competent and well-informed person performing the function of a receptionist at a department providing emergency medical care. The receptionist's provision of incomplete and misleading information about waiting times was found to be negligent. The Court emphasised that it is not unreasonable to require receptionists to take reasonable care not to provide misleading information.
The Court rejected the argument that Darnley's decision to leave the hospital broke the chain of causation. His departure was reasonably foreseeable and influenced by the misleading information, indicating a continuous sequence leading to the injury.
As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding the NHS Trust liable for the negligent breach of duty and remitted the case for the assessment of damages in the Queen's Bench Division. This case underscores the duty of care owed by medical institutions and their staff, including non-medical personnel, in providing accurate information to patients seeking medical assistance.
