“House of Lords sets definitive test for gross negligence manslaughter”
Dr Adomako was an anaesthetist whose patient died during routine surgery after an oxygen supply tube became disconnected. Adomako failed to notice the disconnection for approximately 4.5 minutes despite obvious signs that the patient was in distress. The patient suffered cardiac arrest and died from lack of oxygen to the brain.
What is the correct test for establishing gross negligence manslaughter, and whether the defendant's conduct fell sufficiently below acceptable standards to constitute a criminal offence?
The House of Lords upheld the conviction for gross negligence manslaughter and established that the test requires: (1) a duty of care owed by defendant to victim; (2) breach of that duty; (3) death resulted from the breach; and (4) the breach was so grossly negligent as to justify criminal conviction.
This case provides the definitive modern test for gross negligence manslaughter and clarified the boundary between civil and criminal liability for negligent conduct. It remains the leading authority cited in medical negligence and workplace death cases.
You're reading the free summary of R v Adomako. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 (HL)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.