Analysis Of Gregg V Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg ( ' The Claimant )

Better Essays

In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.

Claimant, on the balance of probabilities (51% or more), must prove that the negligence was a result of the injury, to establish causation. If this is successful, the claimant will be entitled to full compensation. If on balance of probability is 49% or less, the patient will not be entitled to damages. The issue in court was the difficulty to rely on the accuracy of the probability as evidentiary basis.

History of litigation

Trial Court Judgment

At trial court, the judge deliberated that Dr. Scott was negligent for failing to show that the growth might not have been benign. The judge ruled the defendant was a breach of duty.
On the question of whether the negligence caused the by the defendant was a contributing factor to the claimant being unlikely to survive the ten years, the court held that the claimant would have had no chance to survive the ten year period, even with treatment.

The trial judge relied on
    Get Access