The sole judges of their own liability

The decision on this case reiterates the role of the court when deciding whether a treatment is negligent. It is very rare for the views of the medical expert to be held unreasonable, but nevertheless possible. It also reviews the theme that a professional person cannot be the sole judges of their own liability. This case is of great importance as the decision was qualified with the principle of the Bolam case. It was said that a court is not bound 'to hold that a defendant doctor escapes liability for negligent treatment or diagnosis just because he leads evidence from a number of medical experts who are generally of the opinion that the defendants treatment or diagnosis accorded with sound medical practice… The court has to be satisfied that the exponents of the body of opinion relied on the demonstration that such an opinion has a logical basis'(9). 

There have been a many cases in which professionals involved with property have been legally challenged in the tort of negligence. The case of Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] concerned a surveyor who negligently carried out the valuation of the property that Mrs. Smith wanted to purchase. Bush was negligent, in that, he didn't check whether the brickwork above had been removed or was it properly supported. Then later the chimney fell into the bedroom. It was held that the surveyor owed the claimant a duty of care, and the appeal was dismissed. Even though a surveyor is supposed to value and protect the security of the building not advise the claimant on the value of the house, but it was foreseeable that she would rely on it (10). Limitation of liability for professional negligence is regarded as reasonable in a contract with a non-consumer more often. 

In the case of Simaan Contracting Co v Pilkington Glass [1988] the plaintiff had a contract construct a building Abu Dhabi. In the contract it was stated that the client wanted a particular shade of green for the glass. After ordering the glass from the defendant, the glass was the wrong colour and causing the plaintiff more expenses. Simaan sued Pilkington in tort for negligence. It was held that as this was pure economic loss it was not recoverable. Dillon LJ stated that "in my judgement are at least two reasons why the submissions of a counsel for Simaan cannot be accepted and Simaan's direct claim for economic loss against Pilkington must fail" (11). 

Yainni v Edwin Evans & Sons [1982] is another case which affected surveyors. A house was valued at �12,000 by the defendants; the plaintiff borrowed the sum from the building society that had arranged for the valuation. The plaintiff then discovers that the house needed another �18,000 worth of repairs. Park J found the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs (12) this was based on the fact that most house buyers rely on only one evaluation rather than seeking another valuation from somewhere else.

If a party is wronged by tort then there are many routes available in compensating that wrongful tort. The first and obvious route is to compensate through damages or injunctions. Non-compensatory damages can be nominal, or exemplary (13).. Compensatory damages are believed to be a sum of money that will put you in the same position as you were before the tort had been committed also you can be liable for damages if a court believes that you Human Rights have been violated. If your claim's successful you are usually awarded a lump sum but in some cases receive periodical payments. Injections are given for the defendants to do or refrain from doing i.e. trespass.