Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This commentary explores the Court of Appeal's decision in the case of Rose1 in order to assess the risk of liability for gross negligence manslaughter currently faced by the medical profession in the event that negligence causes the death of a patient. Subtly modifying the test established in Adomako,2Rose confirms that in order to be potentially liable, there must be a serious risk of death that was, rather than ought to have been, obvious/foreseeable to the defendant. Consequently, in more complex cases where the serious risk of death is not immediately obvious, negligently failing to assess risk seems to prevent potential liability on the basis that the putative defendant was in a position of negligent ignorance.
Alexandra Mullock (Mon,) studied this question.