Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital

Management Committee

FACTS
On January 1,1966, a group of three people went of the
emergency ward of the hospital and that hospital was run by
Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management centre
Committee.
They had earlier visited on the same day at about 4 am because
they had been struck in the head with a rod of iron by an
intruder. Then they visited to Head nurse about the concerned
problem and they told her that the person who got struck in the
head had been vomiting since 5 am after drinking tea.
The casualty Doctor, Dr Banerjee was not present there to see
the victims and when the head nurse called Dr. Banerjee he
advised over the phone to nurse that “advised them to go to
their home and I will not come and they call their personal
Doctor at their home for treatment”
One of them, Mr. Barnett, died 5 hours later from Arsenic
Poisoning

ISSUE
The wife of late Mr. Barnett, Mrs. Barnett claims that her
husband died dew to the negligence of Chelsea and Kensington
Hospital Management centre Committee for not treating patient
the patient because if the doctors were present there then her
husband get saved, so that’s why she claims damages from the
hospital for their negligence on their part of performing their
duty to treat patient

RULES
In this case rule of negligence is coming in action here.
NEGILGENCE: - When harm caused to a person dew to the
negligence of other person by doing work negligently/carelessly
or failing to perform his/her duty or by omission but the main
thing is that concept of negligence depends on concept of
foreseeability.
The basic concept about law of negligence is that person should
exercise his act or duty correctly with reasonable care in their
actions which they are performing or going to perform in future
if court find them negligent in performing their action then they
have compensate that person who suffered harm/loss dew to
their negligence.
Harm/Loss may include – Property harm, Physical injury,
Mental illness, Economical loss etc.

ANALYSIS
According to the rule of negligence for negligence it requires
mistake or omission on the part of defendant and that mistake
or omission on the part of defendant must be foreseeable then
only the defendant is liable to pay the compensation and in the
above case the person get struck in the head but he died dew
vomiting which leads to Arsenic Poisoning and it is not the direct
consequences of struck in head so as foreseeability is must but
there is no foreseeability so the court decides that Chelsea and
Kensington Hospital Management centre Committee is not
liable to pay compensation to Mrs. Barnett in this particular
case

CONCLUSION
In the above case the person who died dew to arsenic poisoning
and which is and it is not a direct consequences of struck in
head, and there was no fault on the part of the doctor, for an
instance suppose if doctor was there but then also the chances
of getting saved is quite less ,so there is no fault on the part of
doctor, so that’s why in this plaintiff claims set aside and
defendant was set free.

RATCLIFF V. EVANS
FACTS
Ratcliff and sons were the plaintiff and was an engineer and had
a business of making of boiler and defendant a county
newspaper publisher maliciously and falsely represent that the
plaintiff boiler business was no longer in term of business. The
plaintiff appealed in trial court for monetary damages from the
defendant for intending to make false statement about his
business and dew to this he states that it changed the minds of
his customers and dew to this he suffered heavy losses in his
business and that’s why he claimed specific damages and the
trial courts awarded plaintiff monetary expenses and appeal
was made by defendant in the trial court that as plaintiff was
not able to produce any evidence before the respected court
regarding special damages for injury suffered.

ISSUES
Whether it is necessary for the plaintiff to show any kind of
evidence before the court for sanction of specific damages in
matter relating to malicious and false statement which relating
to publishing about plaintiff’s business?

RULES