Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
[1957] 1 Weekly Law Reports 58219571 min read
The case in brief30-second read
- Facts
- The plaintiff underwent electroconvulsive therapy without being administered muscle relaxant drugs and without physical restraint. He suffered fractures during treatment. Medical opinion was divided as to whether relaxants or restraint were the appropriate precaution. The plaintiff sued the treating doctor for negligence.
- Issue
- What standard governs whether a professional's conduct, involving specialised technical judgment, constitutes negligence.
- Held
- A professional is not negligent if their conduct accords with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible, competent body of professional opinion within that field. This applies even where other equally competent professionals prefer a different approach. Since the defendant's chosen approach was supported by a responsible body of medical opinion, no negligence was established.
- Principle
- A professional is not negligent if their conduct accords with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible, competent body of professional opinion, even if other equally competent professionals might have adopted a different approach.
Facts
- The plaintiff underwent electroconvulsive therapy without being administered muscle relaxant drugs and without physical restraint. He suffered fractures during treatment. Medical opinion was divided as to whether relaxants or restraint were the appropriate precaution. The plaintiff sued the treating doctor for negligence.
Issue
- What standard governs whether a professional's conduct, involving specialised technical judgment, constitutes negligence.
Held
- A professional is not negligent if their conduct accords with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible, competent body of professional opinion within that field. This applies even where other equally competent professionals prefer a different approach. Since the defendant's chosen approach was supported by a responsible body of medical opinion, no negligence was established.
Ratio decidendi
Professionals exercising specialised judgment are assessed against the standard of a responsible, competent body of opinion within their profession, not against the standard of an ordinary reasonable person untrained in that field. This standard accommodates genuine, legitimate differences in professional approach among equally competent practitioners.
Exam use
How to use it in an answer
- Key line: "In Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957), the court held that a professional is not negligent if their conduct accords with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of professional opinion."
- This is the foundational professional negligence standard, subsequently qualified by Bolitho to require the relied-upon opinion itself be genuinely responsible and logically defensible.
Cite this
Citation
Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 Weekly Law Reports 582Reported: [1957] 1 WLR 582. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.