“House of Lords refines Bolam test requiring logical basis for medical opinions”
A two-year-old child suffered cardiac arrest and brain damage after respiratory failure at hospital. The issue was whether the consultant paediatrician's failure to attend and intubate the child constituted negligence, with expert witnesses disagreeing on whether intubation would have been appropriate.
Whether the Bolam test for medical negligence required modification to ensure that expert professional opinion relied upon must have a logical basis and be capable of withstanding logical analysis.
The House of Lords held that the Bolam test remained valid but that professional opinion must be capable of withstanding logical analysis. A professional opinion cannot be reasonable if it lacks a logical basis or fails to weigh risks and benefits.
This case significantly refined medical negligence law by preventing the Bolam test from providing blanket protection for medical professionals, ensuring courts can scrutinize the logical basis of expert medical opinions.
You're reading the free summary of Bolitho v City and Hackney HA. 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
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232 (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.