Expert witness: Marriot v West Midlands Regional Health Authority & Others (23 October 1998) Court of Appeal

This case considers the issue of assessment of expert evidence. It is of interest as expert evidence is often significant in cases relating to the environment.

Mr Marriott sustained a head injury which rendered him unconscious. He was taken to hospital but returned home the next day. He continued to complain of headaches, but upon phoning the hospital, his wife received assurances as to his well being. Three days after the accident Mr Marriott's own general practitioner examined him concluding that there were no neurological abnormalities and prescribed painkillers. Two days later, Mr Marriott was rushed to North Staffordshire Hospital, went into cardiac arrest and had to be operated on. The operation revealed an epidural haematoma and inter-cranial bleeding with the result that Mr Marriott was left severely disabled. In an action in negligence brought by Mr Marriott, the High Court Judge awarded damages against both hospitals and the general practitioner. The general practitioner appealed. The court held that in assessing the opinion of the general practitioner, the judge must be satisfied that there was a logical base supporting such opinion by applying the test of a reasonable body of professional opinion. Following the case of Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1997] 3 WLR 1151 (covered in the 1997 Case Law Digest), it was necessary to carry out an assessment of the expert evidence to see whether the experts had directed their minds to the comparative risks and benefits of any preferred procedures and whether the view arrived at was a sensible one. A judge was not bound to accept expert evidence where such assessment demonstrated that the opinion given was not supported by logic. The expert evidence adduced in this case took the form of two individual approaches, which found support with their colleagues, rather than a body of professional opinion. Further it was accepted that the examinations carried out by the general practitioner did not preclude the existence of a haematoma. In the present case, equipment and procedures were readily available upon the remitting of Mr Marriott to hospital where any such injury would have been detected. The judge was therefore entitled to substitute his own opinion for that of the experts. The judge dismissed the appeal. Accordingly the general practitioner was liable to pay damages to Mr Marriott. (New Law Digest, 23 October 1998)