![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Toner v. McLeod [2006] ScotCS CSOH_96 (22 June 2006) URL: https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2006/CSOH_96.html Cite as: [2006] CSOH 96, [2006] ScotCS CSOH_96 |
[New search] [Printable version] [Help]
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2006] CSOH 96 |
|
A2096/02 |
SUPPLEMENTARY OPINION OF LADY PATON in the cause MAUREEN TONER Pursuer; against JOHN M McLEOD Defender: ญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญ________________ |
Pursuer: Springham, Advocate; Digby Brown
SSC
Defender:
Gilmore, Advocate; Shepherd & Wedderburn
22 June 2006
Proof or jury
trial: professional negligence
[1] Following
my earlier opinion issued on
"No ordinarily competent
dentist if exercising reasonable skill and care would have failed to give the aforementioned
advice, explanation and instruction to the pursuer, and take the aforementioned
steps."
The amendment was not opposed.
[2] Both
counsel acknowledged that the fact that a case involves issues of professional
negligence will not per se render it unsuitable for jury trial. Indeed a leading authority on professional
negligence, Hunter v Hanley,
1955 SC 200, involved a jury trial.
guided inter alia by such expert evidence as they accept and by appropriate directions from the judge, will be able to assess whether, and if so, to what extent, the pursuer failed to take reasonable care for her own dental health.
Decision