Rossiter & Paul Simon Rossiter v. Dr tinsley & Dr Jago [2001] EWHC QB 14 (15th February, 2001)

Rossiter & Paul Simon Rossiter v. Dr tinsley & Dr Jago [2001] EWHC QB 14 (15th February, 2001)

Dr. Jago did not breach his duty of care as he reasonably diagnosed a urinary tract infection based on the symptoms presented and the information available; even if there had been an earlier referral to hospital, it is highly unlikely the pregnancy would have been prolonged sufficiently to prevent the Second Claimant's brain injury, so causation is not established.

Citation
[2001] EWHC QB 14
Parties
First Claimant: Fiona Rossiter; Second Claimant: Paul Simon Rossiter; First Defendant: Dr. Tilsley; Second Defendant: Dr. Jago
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence Claim / High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claims dismissed except for any pain and suffering claim by the First Claimant against the First Defendant for admitted breach of duty.
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Causation, Standard of Care, Obstetric Negligence, Pre Eclampsia, Expert Evidence
Medical Negligence Tort Law Breach of Duty Causation Standard of Care Obstetric Negligence Pre Eclampsia Expert Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fiona Rossiter

First Claimant

Paul Simon Rossiter

Second Claimant

Dr. Tilsley

First Defendant

Dr. Jago

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Medical Negligence Claim / High Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr. Jago breached his duty of care to the First Claimant on 19 May 1989
  2. 2 Whether any breach of duty by either Defendant caused the Second Claimant's brain injury

Ratio Decidendi

Dr. Jago did not breach his duty of care as he reasonably diagnosed a urinary tract infection based on the symptoms presented and the information available; even if there had been an earlier referral to hospital, it is highly unlikely the pregnancy would have been prolonged sufficiently to prevent the Second Claimant's brain injury, so causation is not established.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed except for any pain and suffering claim by the First Claimant against the First Defendant for admitted breach of duty.

Orders

  • Second Defendant found not in breach of duty; claim against Dr. Jago dismissed.
  • Claim against First Defendant fails on causation except for possible pain and suffering claim by First Claimant.