Philp v Ryan

Last updated

Philp v Ryan
CourtSupreme Court of Ireland
Full case namePhilp v Ryan & Anor
Decided17 December 2004
Case history
Appealed fromPhilp v Ryan [2004] IEHC 77
Case opinions
Decision byFennelly J

Philp v Ryan & Anor [2004] IESC 105 is an Irish tort law case concerning the actionability of the 'loss of chance' doctrine in medical negligence. [1] Contrary to the position in England and Wales consolidated in Gregg v Scott, the Supreme Court of Ireland awarded compensation to the plaintiff for their loss of life expectancy caused by the defendant's negligence, despite the lack of proof on the balance of probabilities that Mr Philp would have otherwise recovered.

Contents

Facts

The plaintiff, David Philp, was referred to Bon Secours Hospital in Cork by his general practitioner, after complaining of abdominal pain. There, the defendant negligently failed to diagnose Mr Philp with prostate cancer, and instead began treatment for prostatitis. Consequently, by the time the correct diagnosis was made 8 months later, the cancer had advanced, although it was unclear to what extent the progression was affected by the delayed treatment.

Under Fennelly J's discussion of the loss of chance doctrine in the Supreme Court, the question was whether Mr Philp could establish factual causation between his lost chance of recovery and the defendant's negligence. In short, 'but for' the defendant's negligence, was there a greater than 50% chance that Mr Philp would have recovered. In this case, the lost chance related to loss of life expectancy, meaning the court compared possible life expectancy before and after the negligent act. A similar approach was taken by the minority in Gregg v Scott, who found it inappropriate to regard the plaintiff's lost chance as their lost chance of recovery when dealing with a pre-existing condition that was always going to be terminable or otherwise incurable. [2]

Judgement

In the High Court, Mr Philp was awarded €45,000 to compensate for the psychological distress he suffered as a result of his negligently delayed diagnosis and treatment. This was later increased to €100,000 by the Supreme Court. At first instance, the trial judge observed medical expertise presented by Mr Denis Murphy, a consultant Urologist, who stated in his report that "it is not clear that the delay in initiating treatment was detrimental to Mr Philp's progress." [3] There was no evidence presented of the plaintiff's initial chances of survival, which is anomalous with the majority of loss of a chance case law. [4] [2] The trial judge, Peart J, considered it inappropriate to suggest that delayed treatment had no effect on Mr Philp's recovery prospects, despite the lack of statistical evidence:

'It would not be reasonable assume that the delay of some eight months in making the correct diagnosis had no adverse effect on the plaintiff's life expectancy and quality of life, and it is not reasonable for the first-named defendant to say that by not knowing that he had cancer, he was better off in the sense that he could go about his life during that right months free of knowing that he had a serious condition. That would be to deny the plaintiff his basic right to be informed about a serious matter regarding his health, and his right to plan his future in the light of that knowledge.'

Consequently, Fennelly J, who presented the leading judgement in the Supreme Court, concluded that Mr Philp should be awarded damages in recognition of his lost chance, which he equated with an "increased risk of shorter life expectancy:" [1]

'[I]t seems to me to be contrary to instinct and logic that a plaintiff should not be entitled to be compensated for the fact that, due to the negligent diagnosis of his medical condition, he has been deprived of appropriate medical advice and the consequent opportunity to avail of treatment which might improve his condition. I can identify no contrary principle of law or justice. It is commonplace that allowance is made in awards and in settlements for the risk that an injured patient may in the future develop arthritis in an injured joint. The risk may be high or low - a fifteen percent risk is often mentioned but damages are paid. I cannot agree that this is any different from what is sought in the present case. It does not matter that the damage suffered by the plaintiff consists of the loss of an opportunity to avail of treatment. It might, with equal logic, be described as an increased risk of shorter life expectancy. It seems to me as illogical to award damages for probable future injury as if it were a certainty, as to withhold them where the risk is low on the basis that it will not happen at all.'

In agreement with Fennelly J, McCracken J further quantified the plaintiff's entitlement to aggravated damages to compensate for mental distress caused by the defendant. He awarded Mr Philp €50,000 in addition to the €45,000 found at first instance. The total damages awarded increased to €100,000 in recognition of Mr Philp's possible lost chance of a longer life expectancy, for which he was awarded €5,000.

See also

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a controversial cause of action, which is available in nearly all U.S. states but is severely constrained and limited in the majority of them. The underlying concept is that one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual. If one fails in this duty and unreasonably causes emotional distress to another person, that actor will be liable for monetary damages to the injured individual. The tort is to be contrasted with intentional infliction of emotional distress in that there is no need to prove intent to inflict distress. That is, an accidental infliction, if negligent, is sufficient to support a cause of action.

In some common law jurisdictions, contributory negligence is a defense to a tort claim based on negligence. If it is available, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence.

Comparative negligence, called non-absolute contributory negligence outside the United States, is a partial legal defense that reduces the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim, based upon the degree to which the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to cause the injury. When the defense is asserted, the factfinder, usually a jury, must decide the degree to which the plaintiff's negligence and the combined negligence of all other relevant actors all contributed to cause the plaintiff's damages. It is a modification of the doctrine of contributory negligence that disallows any recovery by a plaintiff whose negligence contributed even minimally to causing the damages.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.

<i>Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee</i>

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 is an English tort law case that lays down the typical rule for assessing the appropriate standard of reasonable care in negligence cases involving skilled professionals such as doctors. This rule is known as the Bolam test, and states that if a doctor reaches the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion, they are not negligent. Bolam was rejected in the 2015 Supreme Court decision of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board in matters of informed consent.

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal relief and damages if it arises in connection with their own tortious act. Particularly relevant in the law of contract, tort and trusts, ex turpi causa is also known as the illegality defence, since a defendant may plead that even though, for instance, he broke a contract, conducted himself negligently or broke an equitable duty, nevertheless a claimant by reason of his own illegality cannot sue. The UK Supreme Court provided a thorough reconsideration of the doctrine in 2016 in Patel v Mirza.

Causation is the "causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and end result". In other words, causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury. In criminal law, it is defined as the actus reus from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined with mens rea to comprise the elements of guilt. Causation only applies where a result has been achieved and therefore is immaterial with regard to inchoate offenses.

Loss of chance in English law refers to a particular problem of causation, which arises in tort and contract. The law is invited to assess hypothetical outcomes, either affecting the claimant or a third party, where the defendant's breach of contract or of the duty of care for the purposes of negligence deprived the claimant of the opportunity to obtain a benefit and/or avoid a loss. For these purposes, the remedy of damages is normally intended to compensate for the claimant's loss of expectation. The general rule is that while a loss of chance is compensable when the chance was something promised on a contract it is not generally so in the law of tort, where most cases thus far have been concerned with medical negligence in the public health system.

<i>Cattanach v Melchior</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Cattanach v Melchior [2003] HCA 38; (2003) 215 CLR 1, was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the tort of negligence in a medical context. It was held by a majority of the High Court that the negligent doctor could be held responsible for the costs of raising and maintaining a healthy child.

Arseculeratne v. Priyani Soysa is a landmark and controversial case of alleged medical malpractice in Sri Lanka. Apart from being the first such case in recent times, it is also unique because the principal parties to the case were well known professionals of the country - lawyer Rienzie Arseculeratne (Plaintiff) and Emeritus Professor of Paediatrics, Priyani Soysa (Defendant).

Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] 2 All ER 909 is an English tort law case, about the nature of causation. It rejects the idea that people can sue doctors for the loss of a chance to get better, when doctors fail to do as good a job as they could have done.

<i>Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd</i>

Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] QB 27 is a well-known English Court of Appeal case concerning the recovery of pure economic loss in negligence.

Wrongful birth is a legal cause of action in some common law countries in which the parents of a congenitally diseased child claim that their doctor failed to properly warn of their risk of conceiving or giving birth to a child with serious genetic or congenital abnormalities. Thus, the plaintiffs claim, the defendant prevented them from making a truly informed decision as to whether or not to have the child. Wrongful birth is a type of medical malpractice tort. It is distinguished from wrongful life, in which the child sues the doctor.

<i>Bailey v Ministry of Defence</i>

Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883 is an English tort law case. It concerns the problematic question of factual causation, and the interplay of the "but for" test and its relaxation through a "material contribution" test.

<i>Gregg v Scott</i> 2005 English tort law case

Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2 is an English tort law case, on the issue of loss of a chance, in causation. It affirms the principle of Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority, on a narrow margin of 3 to 2. Lord Nicholls' dissent is of particular note, in arguing that loss of a chance should be actionable.

<i>Landeros v. Flood</i> Court case in California

Landeros v. Flood was a 1976 court case in the state of California involving child abuse and alleged medical malpractice.

<i>Venning v Chin</i> Australian court case

Venning v Chin (1974) 10 SASR 299 is a Supreme Court of South Australia full court judgment, by which it was decided that in trespass cases, the onus lies on the defendant to disprove fault. However, for injuries caused in highway accidents, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove fault on the part of the defendant.

<i>Gilroy v Flynn</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Gilroy v Flynn [2004] IESC 98; [2005] 1 ILRM 290, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court made it clear that excessive delays in the delivery of a statement of claim were unacceptable and could justify dismissing a case. While the Court allowed the appeal against the High Court central to this case to proceed, it effectively reversed the previous "assumption that even grave delay will not lead to the dismissal of an action" even where the fault of the delay lay with a legal adviser rather than the plaintiff.

<i>Walsh v Jones Lang Lasalle Ltd</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Walsh v Jones Lang Lasalle Ltd [2017] IESC 38, is a decision of the Irish Supreme Court in which the court held that a purchaser bears the risk of reliance on erroneous information unless the vendor has clearly assumed responsibility for its accuracy. In reaching this decision, the court clarified the law in Ireland "in relation to the effect of statements disclaiming liability in actions claiming negligent misstatement."

References

  1. 1 2 Philp v Ryan & Anor [2004] IESC 105 (17 December 2004), Supreme Court of Ireland
  2. 1 2 Gregg v Scott (UKHL 2[2005]). Text
  3. ↑ Philp v Ryan & Ors [2004] IEHC 77 , High Court of Ireland
  4. ↑ Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority [1988] UKHL 1 , [1987] 2 All ER 909, [1987] AC 750
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.