ailed to have additional doctors available. However, due to Mike’s contributory negligence it does not defeat his claim entirely, although his damages are likely to be reduced.

Theresa

The duty of care is established as Wally owed care as a medical professional, that has the obligation of taking care of his patients. However, the breach duty of care does not exist as he attended Theresa’s arm professionally, although it was set incorrectly. A breach of duty would have occurred if Wally failed to fulfil his duties of care in a dominant approach under the law of medical negligence. The current law is the Caparo test which Lord Bridge’s developed for imposing a duty of care. That comprises of three stages; foreseeability, proximity, and fairness .

The first part of the Caparo test foreseeability can be established through special knowledge and experience. In this case, Wally is a medical specialist with special skills and qualifications, he has to conform to the standard of care expected and satisfy his duties towards his patients. In the case of Bolam v Friern , a patient was treated for psychiatric problems, but still had an electric shock. The court ruled in favour of the doctor as this was a practice that was in accordance with other professionals. It developed a test where a man did not need to possess the highest expert skills. This case applies to Theresa, as the medical opinion states that there would have been a 40% chance of a trapped nerve even if the arm had been set correctly. Furthermore, all the doctors agree that the cause of trapped nerves are difficult to determine, and a variety of factors could have been the reason.

It has been illustrated in the case of Hotson , that the delay had not deprived the plaintiff of a cure on the balance of probabilities; there was a 25% chance that he would have recovered if treated properly, but a 75% chance that he would not. Furthermore, in the case of Gregg v Scott the doctor reduced his chances of survival for more than 10 years from 42% to 25%. The rule of Hotson implied that the claimant would have died regardless as it was more likely than not; thus, did not satisfy the balance of probabilities.

The second stage of Caparo is established as proximity between Theresa and Wally exists. In Hedley Byrne v Heller , a duty of care arises where there is a “special relationship” between the two parties. In the case of Nettleship v Weston , the claimant was considered negligent as her own act resulted in damage. This relates to Wally as he could be held negligent due to acted below the expected expertise standard by setting Theresa’s arm incorrectly. Prior to the case of Caparo, in Anns v Merton, Lord Wilberforce developed the two-stage test that states “first one has to ask whether, as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage there is a sufficient relationship of proximity. Secondly, it is necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which ought to negative, or to red