Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Solicitors Negligence v Medical Negligence

  • 04-12-2015 3:19pm
    #1
    kidneyfan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭


    Are there any papers that look at the way judges rule on these. Especially as regards the treatment of expert witnesses?
    I have heard anecdotally that cudges are much quicker to query expert witnesses in legal negligence cases than in most other cases and disinclined to query experts in medical negligence cases.

    Is there any academic research on this?


Comments

  • #2
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    kidneyfan wrote: »
    Are there any papers that look at the way judges rule on these. Especially as regards the treatment of expert witnesses?
    I have heard anecdotally that cudges are much quicker to query expert witnesses in legal negligence cases than in most other cases and disinclined to query experts in medical negligence cases.

    Is there any academic research on this?

    Doubtful. Difficult to impricially measure how quick a judge is to query a witness and it would be mostly anecdotal evidence.

    However, what you say does stand to reason - dont forget that Judges are experts of law too. I would imagine that a medical tribunal chaired by doctors would be better equipped to understand medical experts and may be more deferential to legal experts giving evidence.


  • #3
    NUTLEY BOY
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭NUTLEY BOY


    Not aware of any offhand.

    The basic working rules would be the same for both types of cases.

    If a judge choses to intervene by questioning a witness directly I would expect to see that happen more probably in a medical negligence case for the simple reason that some of those actions involve vast quantities of evidence some of which is also highly complex.

    Negligence actions against solicitors may often turn on matters of fact as distinct from complex legal issues. Whist there will always be the odd exception I would generalise and say that medical negligence cases are more complicated than professional negligence cases against solicitors.

    As far as the original question goes the nearest that you might get is to read the judgments in medical negligence cases to see how the judicial mind approaches the subject.

    Unfortunately, trial transcripts are not available publicly.


  • #4
    NUTLEY BOY
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭NUTLEY BOY


    kidneyfan here is a link to a professional negligence case ;

    This is the High Court judgment http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2010/H191.html

    This is the Court of Appeal judgment http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECA/2015/CA251.html

    Offhand, this does not seem to have been a medically complex case but you can see the depth of consideration that is involved.


Advertisement