Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750 (HL)

Facts

  • The claimant, a young boy, sustained a fractured hip after falling from a tree.
  • Medical staff at the defendant hospital failed to diagnose the fracture at his initial visit, sending him home without treatment.
  • Five days later, upon re-admission due to persistent pain, the fracture was detected, but the claimant had already developed avascular necrosis.
  • This condition resulted in permanent disability and increased the likelihood of future osteoarthritis.
  • Expert testimony indicated that if treated promptly, there was a 25% chance of preventing the onset of avascular necrosis.
  • The trial judge awarded the claimant 25% of full damages, reflecting this probability.

Issues

  1. Whether damages can be awarded for the “loss of a chance” of a better medical outcome due to a defendant’s negligence.
  2. Whether the claimant established, on the balance of probabilities, that the hospital’s negligence caused his injury.

Decision

  • The House of Lords reversed the lower court’s award and ruled in favour of the East Berkshire Area Health Authority.
  • The Court held that to establish causation in negligence, the claimant must prove it was more likely than not (over 50%) that the defendant’s breach caused the injury.
  • The Court found that the avascular necrosis likely resulted from the original injury, not the negligent delay, and that prompt treatment would have changed the outcome only in 25% of cases.
  • Therefore, the claimant could not recover damages as he failed to prove causation on the balance of probabilities.
  • The Court confirmed that “loss of a chance” is not compensable in medical negligence unless actual injury is proven to have been caused by the negligence.

Legal Principles

  • In negligence, a claimant must prove causation on the balance of probabilities; a mere chance of a better outcome is not compensable.
  • “Loss of a chance” claims in medical negligence are not actionable where the probability of avoiding harm is less than 50%.
  • The assessment of causation in tort differs from contract law cases such as Chaplin v Hicks, where loss of opportunity may be recoverable.
  • When liability is established on the balance of probabilities, full damages are payable; partial awards based on statistical chance are not permitted in negligence.

Conclusion

The House of Lords in Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority established that claimants in medical negligence must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant’s breach caused their injury; loss of a chance is not itself a compensable injury in tort. This strict standard remains authoritative in English negligence law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal