“Negligent hospital escapes liability due to lack of causation”
Three nightwatchmen attended Casualty at Chelsea & Kensington Hospital complaining of vomiting after drinking tea. The casualty officer negligently failed to examine or treat them properly and sent them home. All three men subsequently died from arsenic poisoning.
Whether the hospital's admitted breach of duty caused the deaths of the three men, and what the test for factual causation should be in medical negligence cases.
The hospital was not liable despite the breach of duty, as the claimants failed to prove that proper treatment would have prevented the deaths. The men would have died from arsenic poisoning regardless of any treatment that could reasonably have been provided.
This case is fundamental to understanding causation in tort law, particularly medical negligence, and established that breach of duty alone is insufficient for liability without proof of causation.
You're reading the free summary of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC. 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
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428 (QBD)
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.