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)

No breach of duty was established against Dr. Jago, as he acted within the standard expected of a general practitioner based on the symptoms presented. Even if there had been earlier referral to hospital, it is highly unlikely that the pregnancy would have been prolonged sufficiently to prevent the injury to the second claimant. Therefore, causation was not established against either defendant (except possibly for pain and suffering of the first claimant due to Dr. Tilsley's admitted breach).

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
Outcome
Claims dismissed (except possible pain and suffering claim by first claimant against first defendant)
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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr. Tilsley and/or Dr. Jago breached their duty of care to the claimants
  2. 2 Whether any breach of duty caused the injuries suffered by the claimants

Ratio Decidendi

No breach of duty was established against Dr. Jago, as he acted within the standard expected of a general practitioner based on the symptoms presented. Even if there had been earlier referral to hospital, it is highly unlikely that the pregnancy would have been prolonged sufficiently to prevent the injury to the second claimant. Therefore, causation was not established against either defendant (except possibly for pain and suffering of the first claimant due to Dr. Tilsley's admitted breach).

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed (except possible pain and suffering claim by first claimant against first defendant)

Orders

  • No liability found against Dr. Jago (Second Defendant)
  • Claims fail on causation against both defendants except for possible pain and suffering claim by first claimant against Dr. Tilsley (First Defendant)