ABSTRACT
The author analyses the recent decision of the UK Supreme Court in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust. The case is a significant one not only because the court was invited – and ultimately declined – to develop the law in relation to recovery for psychiatric injury by secondary victims, but also because of its clarification of the scope of a doctor’s duty of care. In the course of the judgment, the court also took the opportunity to correct some wrong turnings taken in earlier court decisions.
€ (Westlaw)
Eleanor J Russell, ‘Psychiatric injury claims by secondary victims: clarification and correcting wrong turnings’ [2024] (2) Juridical Review 57-76.
Leave a Reply