Gerrard & Anor v. Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust [2002] ScotCS 11 (11th January, 2002)

Gerrard & Anor v. Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust [2002] ScotCS 11 (11th January, 2002)

The pursuers failed to establish that Dr. Busby-Earle's actions fell below the standard of care required of a senior registrar in obstetrics and gynaecology. The court accepted that her management, including the attempt to correct the presentation with syntocinon, was within the range of reasonable professional practice supported by expert evidence. There was no breach of duty as required by Hunter v Hanley, and thus no liability for negligence.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 11
Parties
Pursuer: Margaret Brown Gerrard; Pursuer: Raymond Alexander Waddell Gerrard; Defender: Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Civil Medical Negligence / Proof Before Answer (trial on Liability and Causation)
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Standard of Care, Causation, Damages for Death, Obstetrics
Medical Negligence Tort Law Professional Negligence Standard of Care Causation Damages for Death Obstetrics

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Brown Gerrard

Pursuer

Raymond Alexander Waddell Gerrard

Pursuer

Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Medical Negligence / Proof Before Answer (trial on Liability and Causation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the senior registrar was professionally negligent in the management of the second twin's delivery
  2. 2 Whether any such negligence caused or contributed to the death of the second twin

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers failed to establish that Dr. Busby-Earle's actions fell below the standard of care required of a senior registrar in obstetrics and gynaecology. The court accepted that her management, including the attempt to correct the presentation with syntocinon, was within the range of reasonable professional practice supported by expert evidence. There was no breach of duty as required by Hunter v Hanley, and thus no liability for negligence.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed