NEAL v AMBULANCE SERVICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES [2008] NSWCA 346

NEAL v AMBULANCE SERVICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES [2008] NSWCA 346

The appeal failed and the Ambulance Service's cross-appeal succeeded because, although ambulance officers should have informed police of the plaintiff's need for medical assessment, the plaintiff did not prove on the balance of probabilities that he would willingly have gone to hospital and submitted to assessment...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Negligence Proceedings in Tort Concerning Alleged Delayed Medical Treatment of an Injured Intoxicated Person / Appeal and Cross Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; District Court judgment against the Ambulance Service set aside and judgment entered for the Ambulance Service.
Legal Topics
['duty of Care Owed by Ambulance Officers' 'duty of Care Owed by Police to Intoxicated Detainee' 'causation Under Civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw), S 5 D' 'admissibility of Evidence About What Plaintiff Would Have Done' 'intoxicated Persons Detention Powers' 'police Custody Medical Treatment Protocol']
['torts' 'negligence' 'evidence' 'police Powers'] ['duty of Care Owed by Ambulance Officers' 'duty of Care Owed by Police to Intoxicated Detainee' 'causation Under Civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw), S 5 D' 'admissibility of Evidence About What Plaintiff Would Have Done' 'intoxicated Persons Detention Powers' 'police Custody Medical Treatment Protocol']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Negligence Proceedings in Tort Concerning Alleged Delayed Medical Treatment of an Injured Intoxicated Person / Appeal and Cross Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether ambulance officers breached a duty of care by failing to advise police that the plaintiff needed to be conveyed to hospital for medical assessment.' 'Whether any breach by the ambulance officers caused the delay in treatment, including whether the plaintiff would have accepted medical assessment and treatment.' 'Whether police breached a duty of care by taking the plaintiff to the police station rather than hospital, or by failing to arrange medical treatment at the police station.' 'Whether the police protocol informed the content of the general law duty of care owed to detainees in police custody.' 'Whether damages were correctly assessed on a loss of a chance basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed and the Ambulance Service's cross-appeal succeeded because, although ambulance officers should have informed police of the plaintiff's need for medical assessment, the plaintiff did not prove on the balance of probabilities that he would willingly have gone to hospital and submitted to assessment and treatment. Any breach by the ambulance officers was therefore not shown to have caused the delay. The police and custody manager did not breach their duty in the circumstances, and in any event the same causation analysis would have precluded liability against the State.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; District Court judgment against the Ambulance Service set aside and judgment entered for the Ambulance Service.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the appeal.' "Order the appellant to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal." 'Allow the cross-appeal and set aside orders 1 and 2 made in the District Court on 15 June 2007.' 'Give judgment for the Ambulance Service of New South Wales (the first defendant) against the plaintiff.' "Order the plaintiff to...