SCHNEIDER V. ROBERTSON & ORS. 2/1940

SCHNEIDER V. ROBERTSON & ORS. 2/1940

Where the facts allow the jury to reasonably conclude that injury resulted from either excessive exposure or proximity during an X-ray procedure—matters within the practitioner's control—an inference of negligence is reasonably open, especially when alternative non-negligent explanations have been excluded by evidence.

Parties
Plaintiff: Schneider; Defendants: Robertson & Others
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 1940
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Order of the Supreme Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Negligence of Medical Practitioners, Standard of Care in Radiology, Causation in Personal Injury
Tort Law Medical Negligence Negligence of Medical Practitioners Standard of Care in Radiology Causation in Personal Injury

Case Brief

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Schneider

Plaintiff

Robertson & Others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was evidence of negligence by the defendants as medical practitioners causing the plaintiff's X-ray burn
  2. 2 Whether the jury's verdict should be restored

Ratio Decidendi

Where the facts allow the jury to reasonably conclude that injury resulted from either excessive exposure or proximity during an X-ray procedure—matters within the practitioner's control—an inference of negligence is reasonably open, especially when alternative non-negligent explanations have been excluded by evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Order of the Supreme Court set aside.

Orders

  • Verdict of the jury and the judgment entered thereon restored.
  • The defendants to pay the costs of this appeal and of the appeal to the Supreme Court.