Tingle John
Nottingham Law School, The Nottingham Trent University.
Br J Nurs. 2002;11(17):1128-30. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2002.11.17.1128.
This article, the third in a series on clinical negligence, looks at the law surrounding breach of the duty of care in negligence. It shows some of the principles that judges and lawyers use in order to decide whether a person has broken his/her duty of care in the tort of negligence. It will be seen that the principles are contained in decided court cases, some of which are quite old but are still relevant today. The focus of this article is on the rule that courts, in deciding the issue of a breach of duty of care, would judge the defendant's conduct by the standard of what the hypothetical, 'reasonable person' would have done in the circumstances of the case.
本文是关于医疗过失系列文章中的第三篇，探讨了过失侵权中违反注意义务相关的法律。它展示了法官和律师用以判定一个人在过失侵权中是否违反其注意义务的一些原则。可以看出，这些原则蕴含在已判决的法庭案件中，其中一些案件年代颇为久远，但在当今仍具相关性。本文的重点是一项规则，即在判定注意义务是否被违反的问题时，法院会以假设的“理性人”在案件情形中会采取的行为标准来评判被告的行为。
