Roe v Minister of Health [1954] 2 QB 66

Facts

• The case involved an anaesthetist administering an anaesthetic to a patient using a glass ampoule stored in phenol solution for sterilization.
• The ampoule had an invisible crack, causing phenol to seep into the anaesthetic and resulting in the patient’s paralysis.
• The events took place in 1947, at which time the risk of contamination through invisible cracks was not recognized by the medical community.
• The anaesthetist followed standard medical practices as understood in 1947.
• Legal proceedings questioned whether the anaesthetist breached their duty of care by not detecting or preventing contamination based on the knowledge available at the time.

Issues

1. Whether the standard of care owed by the medical professional should be assessed according to the knowledge and practices existing at the time of the incident.
2. Whether the anaesthetist was negligent for failing to anticipate and prevent contamination of the anaesthetic, given the scientific understanding available in 1947.
3. The extent to which a professional can be held liable for risks that were not, at the time, known or reasonably foreseeable.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal found that the anaesthetist did not breach their duty of care.
• The actions of the anaesthetist were judged by the state of knowledge in 1947, not by standards or discoveries made later.
• The risk posed by invisible cracks in glass ampoules was not appreciated by the medical profession until 1951, after the incident.
• The anaesthetist’s conduct conformed to the standard practices of the profession at the relevant time, so there was no negligence.
• The Court ruled it is unfair and inappropriate to hold professionals to standards of knowledge or practice that emerged after the event.

Legal Principles

• Negligence is evaluated according to the standard of a reasonably competent professional, assessed in light of the knowledge and practice prevailing at the time of the incident.
• Professionals are not liable for failing to foresee risks that were not reasonably known or discoverable at the material time.
• The standard of care is historically contextual, not retrospectively raised by later scientific or technical developments.
• The principle applies broadly to professions whose knowledge and practices change over time, ensuring fairness and avoiding undue liability.
• The temporal context of industry practices and scientific knowledge is a fundamental consideration in negligence law.

Conclusion

Roe v Minister of Health established that the standard of care in negligence is measured by the professional and scientific knowledge available at the time of the alleged breach. The anaesthetist was not negligent as the risk was undiscoverable with the means then known, and holding professionals to future standards would be unjust. This case underlines the importance of context and ongoing evolution of legal and professional standards.