Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee
[1969] 1 QB 428
판결 이유
Even where the defendant owed a duty of care and breached it, the claimant must prove that the breach caused or materially contributed to the damage. If the damage would have occurred regardless of the breach, causation is not established ('but for' test).
사실관계
Three night watchmen drank tea which had been laced with arsenic. They went to the casualty department of the defendant's hospital. The duty doctor, who was himself unwell, did not examine them but told them to go home and see their own doctors. One of the men, Mr Barnett, died of arsenic poisoning.
판결 요약
Nield J held that while the doctor had breached his duty of care by failing to examine the patient, the claim failed on causation. The evidence showed that even if Mr Barnett had been examined and treated, he would still have died because the arsenic poisoning was too advanced for any antidote to be effective.
주요 인용문
"Without doubt the defendant was negligent. But the plaintiff must also prove the negligence caused the death. The question is: but for the doctor's negligence, would Mr Barnett have died?"
— Nield J
후속 처리
Leading illustration of the 'but for' test of factual causation. Regularly cited in medical negligence cases.