Gregg v Scott
A claimant cannot recover damages in negligence for the reduction of his chance of being cured of cancer, where he could not show that the delay probably caused a worse outcome.
Facts
Mr Gregg went to his doctor, Dr Scott, with a lump under his arm. Dr Scott negligently diagnosed it as harmless, and failed to refer him to a specialist. About nine months later, another doctor referred him, and it was found to be cancer, which had spread. The delay reduced his chance of being cured, which was then measured as surviving ten years, from 42 per cent to 25 per cent. He sued Dr Scott for the loss of this chance. By the time of the appeal, he had survived much longer than expected.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held, by a majority of three to two, that he could not recover. Lord Hoffmann said that a claim for loss of a chance of a better medical outcome would be a radical change to the law of causation in personal injury cases, which should be left to Parliament. Since Mr Gregg had less than a 50 per cent chance of cure even with prompt treatment, he could not prove on the balance of probabilities that the delay caused him to lose a cure. Baroness Hale was concerned that allowing loss of chance claims would lead to many claims in which almost every claimant would recover something. Lord Nicholls and Lord Hope dissented.
Related cases on causation
- Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467
- Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20, [2006] 2 AC 572
- Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428
- Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613
- Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41, [2005] 1 AC 134
- Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32
- Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750
- Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] AC 794
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
