{"title":"医生提供建议的职责范围","authors":"Kian Peng Soh","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2021.1990635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In Khan v Meadows [2021] UKSC 21, the United Kingdom Supreme Court had the opportunity to consider whether the principle laid down in South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd [1997] AC 191 applied in the context of medical negligence. While the Court unanimously agreed that the SAAMCO principle applied in the context of medical negligence, they parted ways as to how the SAAMCO principle, or ‘scope of duty’ principle, fitted into the analytical structure of the tort of negligence. This note argues that the approach taken by Lord Hodge and Lord Sales conflates the scope of duty analysis with that for ascertaining the existence of a duty of care.","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":"21 1","pages":"328 - 335"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scope of a doctor’s duty to advise\",\"authors\":\"Kian Peng Soh\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14729342.2021.1990635\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In Khan v Meadows [2021] UKSC 21, the United Kingdom Supreme Court had the opportunity to consider whether the principle laid down in South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd [1997] AC 191 applied in the context of medical negligence. While the Court unanimously agreed that the SAAMCO principle applied in the context of medical negligence, they parted ways as to how the SAAMCO principle, or ‘scope of duty’ principle, fitted into the analytical structure of the tort of negligence. This note argues that the approach taken by Lord Hodge and Lord Sales conflates the scope of duty analysis with that for ascertaining the existence of a duty of care.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"328 - 335\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2021.1990635\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2021.1990635","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在Khan v Meadows [2021] UKSC 21中,英国最高法院有机会考虑南澳大利亚资产管理公司诉York Montague Ltd [1997] AC 191中规定的原则是否适用于医疗过失。虽然法院一致同意SAAMCO原则适用于医疗过失的情况,但他们在SAAMCO原则或“责任范围”原则如何适用于过失侵权的分析结构方面存在分歧。本说明认为,霍奇勋爵和萨莱斯勋爵采取的方法将责任分析的范围与确定注意义务存在的范围混为一谈。
ABSTRACT In Khan v Meadows [2021] UKSC 21, the United Kingdom Supreme Court had the opportunity to consider whether the principle laid down in South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd [1997] AC 191 applied in the context of medical negligence. While the Court unanimously agreed that the SAAMCO principle applied in the context of medical negligence, they parted ways as to how the SAAMCO principle, or ‘scope of duty’ principle, fitted into the analytical structure of the tort of negligence. This note argues that the approach taken by Lord Hodge and Lord Sales conflates the scope of duty analysis with that for ascertaining the existence of a duty of care.