GROSS NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL) MANSLAUGHTER AND THE PUZZLING IMPLICATIONS OF NEGLIGENT IGNORANCE: ROSE v R [2017] EWCA Crim1168Citation formats

Standard

GROSS NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL) MANSLAUGHTER AND THE PUZZLING IMPLICATIONS OF NEGLIGENT IGNORANCE: ROSE v R [2017] EWCA Crim1168. / Mullock, Alexandra.

In: Medical Law Review, 2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{36c867508578402f87887b5d01c27023,
title = "GROSS NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL) MANSLAUGHTER AND THE PUZZLING IMPLICATIONS OF NEGLIGENT IGNORANCE: ROSE v R [2017] EWCA Crim1168",
abstract = "This commentary explores the Court of Appeal{\textquoteright}s decision in the case of Rose in order to assess the risk of liability for gross negligence manslaughter currently faced by the medical profession in the event that negligence causes the death of a patient. Subtly modifying the test established in Adomako, Rose confirms that in order to be potentially liable, there must be a serious risk of death that was, rather than ought to have been, obvious/foreseeable to the defendant. Consequently, in more complex cases where the serious risk of death is not immediately obvious, negligently failing to assess risk seems to prevent potential liability on the basis that the putative defendant was in a position of negligent ignorance.",
keywords = "Gross Negligence Manslaughter",
author = "Alexandra Mullock",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1093/medlaw/fwy021",
language = "English",
journal = "Medical Law Review",
issn = "0967-0742",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - GROSS NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL) MANSLAUGHTER AND THE PUZZLING IMPLICATIONS OF NEGLIGENT IGNORANCE: ROSE v R [2017] EWCA Crim1168

AU - Mullock, Alexandra

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - This commentary explores the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Rose in order to assess the risk of liability for gross negligence manslaughter currently faced by the medical profession in the event that negligence causes the death of a patient. Subtly modifying the test established in Adomako, Rose confirms that in order to be potentially liable, there must be a serious risk of death that was, rather than ought to have been, obvious/foreseeable to the defendant. Consequently, in more complex cases where the serious risk of death is not immediately obvious, negligently failing to assess risk seems to prevent potential liability on the basis that the putative defendant was in a position of negligent ignorance.

AB - This commentary explores the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Rose in order to assess the risk of liability for gross negligence manslaughter currently faced by the medical profession in the event that negligence causes the death of a patient. Subtly modifying the test established in Adomako, Rose confirms that in order to be potentially liable, there must be a serious risk of death that was, rather than ought to have been, obvious/foreseeable to the defendant. Consequently, in more complex cases where the serious risk of death is not immediately obvious, negligently failing to assess risk seems to prevent potential liability on the basis that the putative defendant was in a position of negligent ignorance.

KW - Gross Negligence Manslaughter

U2 - 10.1093/medlaw/fwy021

DO - 10.1093/medlaw/fwy021

M3 - Comment/debate

JO - Medical Law Review

JF - Medical Law Review

SN - 0967-0742

ER -