Legal Corner
(b) failed to inform the hospital that she was
not fit to drive
(c) failed herself to request a taxi or other
means of transport to return home
(d) failed to arrange for someone to collect
her from hospital.
The hospital sought to deflect liability to the
psychiatrist who prescribed the medication.
The psychiatrist denied negligence and
sought to rely on the relevant defence
afforded under the Civil Liability Act, to
assert that her treatment of Ms N was in
a manner that at the time was accepted
in Australia by peer opinion as competent
professional practice. Both the hospital and
the treating psychiatrist alleged contributory
negligence on the part of Ms N, in that she: At trial, the psychiatrist argued her treatment
of Ms N was “in accordance with peer
professional standards of practice”. The
judge dismissed this defence, rejecting the
defendant’s expert opinion in support of
the defence argument because the expert’s
opinion contained an implicit assumption
that the psychiatrist assessed the plaintiff
as “fit to drive”. On this topic the judge said:
“[Tha