Roe v Minister of Health [1954]

Roe v Minister of Health [1954] 2 All ER 131 is a landmark English tort law decision from the Court of Appeal, renowned for its significant influence on the common law across various jurisdictions. Central to this case is an exploration of negligence in medical treatment, with a focus on critical legal considerations such as the duty of care, foreseeability of harm, and the prevailing scientific knowledge at the time.

In 1947, the plaintiffs, Roe and Woolley, underwent surgery at Chesterfield Hospital under the oversight of the Minister of Health. The surgical procedure involved the administration of Nupercaine, an anaesthetic, through a lumbar puncture. Unbeknownst to the medical staff, the glass ampoules containing the anaesthetic had micro-cracks that were invisible to the naked eye, allowing phenol contamination. This contamination led to permanent paraplegia for the patients, later identified as caused by an acidic descaler that remained in the sterilising water boiler.

The legal landscape at the time required establishing a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and a direct causal link between the breach and the resulting harm for a finding of negligence. The court applied an objective test, considering the actions of a "reasonable man" in the same situation. Importantly, the court emphasised the need to assess actions based on the knowledge and standards existing at the time of the incident, avoiding the use of hindsight.

In the judicial perspectives presented during the case, Denning LJ cautioned against viewing the 1947 incident with the benefit of later knowledge, stressing that the micro-cracks were unforeseeable given the prevailing scientific understanding of the time. The court concluded that the medical professionals involved had adhered to the standards of care applicable in 1947, and changes in practice over time demonstrated the profession's responsibility in self-regulation.

Somervell LJ highlighted that the risk of phenol contamination through undetectable cracks was not appreciated by competent anaesthetists in 1947. Dr Graham, the anaesthetist in question, was deemed not negligent based on the standard of knowledge prevalent at that time.

Morris LJ emphasised the importance of judging actions in 1947 based on the information and medical literature available at that time. Dr Graham's decisions were considered in light of the then-existing state of medical knowledge, and the court concluded that he had not been negligent.

In essence, this case underscores the principle that judgments of negligence should be made considering the prevailing knowledge and standards at the time of the incident, steering clear of the biases introduced by hindsight. This case has had a lasting impact on the approach to negligence claims, especially those involving medical procedures and evolving professional standards.
Back to blog
UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

Get ready for the SQE1 with high-performance SQE Study Guides developed by UOLLB, edited by lawyers, and published by UOL Press to revolutionise your study method and exam strategy.

Turbocharge SQE Performance

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain instant access to over 2,100 essential case summaries. UOL Case Bank is constantly expanding.
Speed up your revision with us now👇

Subscribe Now

Where are our students from?

Council of Europe
Crown Prosecution Service
Baker Mckenzie 
Yale University
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan 
INSEAD
University of London
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, University of London
University of Manchester
University of Zurich
University of York
Brandeis University
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
Boston University
University of Washington
University of Leeds
University of Law
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Toronto Metropolitan University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
University of Buckingham
ESSEC Business School

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

    Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

    Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

    Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

    We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

    Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

  • Company Law

    Terminology

    Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

  • Case Law

    Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

    You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Problem Question Guide

    We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

    Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

    You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory

    Exam-focused

    All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.