Abstract
This article seeks to elucidate the dual conceptions or theories of fault that exist in the domain of medical liability law. The first of these is often characterized as "descriptive" or "customary," as appears from a survey of relevant jurisprudential and doctrinal sources, However, this predominant understanding of medical malpractice is increasingly facing scrutiny as a second conception emerges. This alternative perspective is manifested through the development, across various jurisdictions, of a normative lexicon—specifically the term "reasonableness"—which delineates the legal standard anticipated of a physician's conduct, In addition to the oversight exercised by the exclusion of customary practices that may exhibit evident deficiencies or hazards, contemporary courts have also been entrusted with the critical function of acting as "guatekeepers " of the quality of scientific evidence required to evaluate the propriety of medical practices. This article further delves into specific concerns and ambiguities related to the evidentiary aspects of establishing a customary standard. Such uncertainties, we conlude, will in turn perpetuate a standard that is still essentially grounded in established custom and clinical practices.
References
Abraham, K. S. (2009). Custom, Noncustomary Practice, and Negligence. Columbia Law Review 109(7), 1784–1822. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1338312
Bélanger-Hardy, L. & Boivin, D. 2005. La responsabilité délictuelle en common law. Québec : Éditions Yvon Blais, 662–663.
Berger, M. A. (2011). The Admissibility of Expert Testimony. Manual on Scientific Evidence (3rd ed.). Federal Judicial Center. Washington: National Academies Press.
Blake, V. (2013). Medicine, the Law, and Conceptions of Evidence. Virtual Mentor 15(1), 46–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2013.15.1.hlaw1-1301
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, [1957] 1 WLR 582.
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority, [1997] 4 All ER 771.
Brown, D. R. (1993). Panacea or Pandora's Box: The “Two Schools of Medical Thought” Doctrine After Jones v. Chidester, 610 A.2d 964 (Pa. 992). Urban Law Annual 44, 223–234. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1156&context=law_urbanlaw
Cappellino, Anjelica. (2023). Guide To Motions, Hearings, and Rulings. Expert Institute. https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/the-daubert-standard-a-guide-to-motions-hearings-and-rulings-old/
Cheah, T. S. (1998). The Impact of Clinical Guidelines and Clinical Pathways on Medical Practice: Effectiveness and Medico-Legal Aspects. Annals Academy Medicine Singapore 27(4), 533–539.
Chénier, R.-J. (2004). Resource Allocation and the Standard of Care of Physicians. La Revue du Barreau Canadien 83(1), 1–33. https://cbr.cba.org/index.php/cbr/article/view/3987
Cooke, B. K., Worsham, E., & Reisfield, G. M. (2017). The Elusive Standard of Care. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 45(3), 358–364. https://jaapl.org/content/45/3/358.long
Cramm, T., Hartz, A.J., & Green, M.D. (2002). Ascertaining Customary Care in Malpractice Cases: Asking Those Who Know. Wake Forest Law Review 37, 699–700.
Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc, (1993) 509 US: 579–95.
Eisenberg, J. M. (2001). What Does Evidence Mean? Can the Law and Medicine Be Reconciled? Journal Health Politics, Policy & Law 26(2), 369–381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-26-2-369
Farrell, M. G. (1994). Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Epistemology and Legal Process. Cardozo Law Review 15, 2183–2217.
Frederick, B. (1994). Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Method or Madness?. Connecticut Law Review 27, 237–278. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/conlr27&div=18&id=&page=
Gilliard, F. (2002). La relation sujet-objet et ses avatars dans la genèse du juridique. Librairie Droz. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/droz.gilli.2002.01
Ginsberg, M. (2013). The Locality Rule Lives! Why? Using Modern Medicine to Eradicate an “Unhealthy” Law. Drake Law Review 61, 321-373. https://drakelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/irvol61-2_ginsberg.pdf
Grosso, S. (2018). What Is Reasonable and What Can Be Proved as Reasonable: Reflections on the Role of Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Practice Guidelines in Medical Negligence Claims. Annals of Health Law 27(1), 79–86. https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1456&context=annals
Harrington, J. A. (2002). Red in Tooth and Claw': The Idea of Progress in Medicine and the Common Law. Social & Legal Studies 11(2), 219–220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/096466390201100203
Henson, N. (2018). A Taste of Their Own Medicine: Examining the Admissibility of Experts' Prior Malpractice Under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Vanderbilt Law Review 71(3), 995–1031. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol71/iss3/5/
Hurwitz, B. (1998). Clinical Guidelines and the Law: Negligence, Discretion, and Judgement, London: CRC Press.
Hurwitz, B. (2004). How does evidence-based guidance influence determinations of medical negligence? The BMJ 329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7473.1024
Institut National de la Magistrature. Manuel Scientifique à l’Intention des Juges Canadiens. www.nji-inm.ca/index.cfm/publications/science-manual-for-canadian-judges/?langSwitch=fr.
Jonakait, R. N. (1994). The Meaning of Daubert and What That Means for Forensic Science. Cardozo Law Review 15(6), 2103–2118. https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_articles_chapters/1054/
Khan, M., & Robson, M. (1995). What is a Responsible Body of Medical Opinion? Professional Negligence 11.
Kinney, E. D., & Wilder, M. M. (1989). Medical Standard Setting in the Current Malpractice Environmental: Problems and Possibilities. University of California Davis Law Review 22, 441–442. https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk15026/files/media/documents/DavisVol22No2_Kinney.pdf
Kouri, R. P., & Bernardot, A. (1980). La responsabilité civile médicale, Sherbrooke: Éditions Revue du droit , 450 p.
Kramer v Milner, [1994] 639 NE 2d 157.
Kulich R. J., Driscoll, J., Prescott, J. C., Pelletier, N., Driscoll, S., Cooke, W. L., Correa, N., & Mehta, R. (2003). The Daubert Standard, A Primer for Pain Specialists. Pain Medicine 4(1), 75–80. https://academic.oup.com/painmedicine/article/4/1/75/1816689 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-4637.2003.03007.x
Lapointe c Hôpital Le Gardeur, [1992] 1 RCS 351, 90 DLR (4e) 7. Leduc c Soccio, 2007 QCCA 209.
Leiter, B. (1997). The Epistemology of Admissibility Why Even Good Philosophy of Science Would Not Make for Good Philosophy of Evidence. Brigham Young University Law Review 1997. Issue 4, 803–820. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2777&context=lawreview
Meadow, W. & Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Statistics, Not Experts. Duke Law Journal 51(2), 629–646. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol51/iss2/2/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1373203
Mehlman, M. J. (2012). Professional Power and the Standard of Care in Medicine. Case Western Reserve University: Faculty Publications 574, 637–1183. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1576&context=faculty_publications
Mello, M. M. (2002). Using Statistical Evidence to Prove the Malpractice Standard of Care: Bridging Legal, Clinical and Statistical Thinking. Wake Forest Law Review 37(3), 821–860. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.347780
Morgan v Sheppard, [1963] 188 NE 2d 808.
Neil, V. (2009). Juries and Medical Malpractice Claims: Empirical Facts versus Myths. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 467(2), 367–375. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2628507/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0608-6
Noah, L. (2002). Medicine's Epistemology: Mapping the Haphazard Diffusion of Knowledge in the Biomedical Community. Arizona Law Review 44(2), 373–466.
Peters, Philip G. Jr. (2000). The Quiet Demise of Deference to Custom: Malpractice Law at the Millennium. Wash & Lee Law Review 57(1). No. 5, 163–959. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1313&context=wlulr
Roberge c Bolduc, [1991] 1 RCS 374, 78 DLR (4e) 666, 378.
Rosoff, A. J. (2001). Evidence-Based Medicine and the Law: The Courts Confront Clinical Practice Guidelines. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 26(2), 327–368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-26-2-327
Samanta, A., Mello, M. M., Foster,C. & Tingle, J. (2006). The Role of Clinical Guidelines in Medical Negligence Litigation: A Shift from the Bolam Standard?. Medical Law Review 14(3), 321–366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwl010
Samantha, Ash, Jo S., & Gunn, M. (2003). Legal Consideration of Clinical Guideline: Will Nice Make a Difference? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 96(3), 133–138. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/014107680309600310 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680309600310
Szczyrbak, M. (2022). Interacting with the Expert Witness: Courtroom Epistemics Under a Discourse Analyst’s Lens. In: Guillén-Nieto, V., Stein, D. (Eds.) Language as Evidence (pp. 105–130). Palgrave Macmillan, Chapter 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84330-4_5
Shanmugam, K. (2002). Testing the Bolam Test: Consequences of Recent Developments. Singapore Medical Journal 43(1), 7–11 http://www.smj.org.sg/sites/default/files/4301/4301l1.pdf
Teff, H. (1998). The Standard of Care in Medical Negligence - Moving on From Bolam? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18(3), 473–484.https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article-abstract/18/3/473/1492927 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/18.3.473
Ter Neuzen c Korn, [1995] 3 RCS 674, 127 DLR (4e) 577, 696.
Toth v Community Hospital at Glen Cove, [1968]. 22 NY 2d 255.
Upfold, J. (2002). Emergency Department Overcrowding: Ambulance Diversion and the Legal Duty to Care. Canadian Medical Association Journal 166(4), 445–446. https://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/4/445
Villemure c Hôpital Notre Dame, [1973] RCS 716, 31 DLR (3d) 454.
Watters c White, 2012 QCCA 257.
Williams, C. L. (2011). Evidence-Based Medicine in the Law Beyond Clinical Practice Guidelines: What Effect will EBM have on the Standard of Care? Washington and Lee University School of Law Review 61(1), 479–533. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol61/iss1/10/
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Nicholas Léger-Riopel
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
When submitting a paper the author agrees to the following publishing agreement and processing personal data.
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT, COPYRIGHT LICENSE, PERSONAL DATA PROCESSING CONSENT
This is a publication agreement and copyright license (“Agreement”) regarding a written manuscript currently submitted via Pressto platform
(“Article”) to be published in Comparative Legilinguistics International Journal for Legal Communication (“Journal”).
The parties to this Agreement are:
the Author or Authors of the submitted article (individually, or if more than one author, collectively, “Author”) and Comparative Legilinguistics International Journal for Legal Communication (“Publisher”), address al. Niepodległości 4, 61-874 Poznań, represented by its editor in chief Aleksandra Matulewska.
§1. LICENSE OF COPYRIGHT
a) The Author and the Publisher agree that the Author grants a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which is incorporated herein by reference and is further specified at Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0 copyright license in the Article to the general public.
b) The Author grants to the Publisher a royalty-free, worldwide nonexclusive license to publish, reproduce, display, distribute, translate and use the Article in any form, either separately or as part of a collective work, including but not limited to a nonexclusive license to publish the Article in an issue of the Journal, copy and distribute individual reprints of the Article, authorize reproduction of the entire Article in another publication, and authorize reproduction and distribution of the Article or an abstract thereof by means of computerized retrieval systems (such as Westlaw, Lexis and SSRN). The Author retains ownership of all rights under copyright in the Article, and all rights not expressly granted in this Agreement.
c) The Author grants to the Publisher the power to assign, sublicense or otherwise transfer any and all licenses expressly granted to the Publisher under this Agreement.
d) Republication. The Author agrees to require that the Publisher be given credit as the original publisher in any republication of the Article authorized by the Author. If the Publisher authorizes any other party to republish the Article under the terms of paragraphs 1c and 1 of this Agreement, the Publisher shall require such party to ensure that the Author is credited as the Author.
§2. EDITING OF THE ARTICLE
a) The Author agrees that the Publisher may edit the Article as suitable for publication in the Journal. To the extent that the Publisher’s edits amount to copyrightable works of authorship, the Publisher hereby assigns all right, title, and interest in such edits to the Author.
§3. WARRANTIES
a) The Author represents and warrants that to the best of the Author’s knowledge the Article does not defame any person, does not invade the privacy of any person, and does not in any other manner infringe upon the rights of any person. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Publisher against all such claims.
b) The Author represents and warrants that the Author has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to grant the licenses granted in this Agreement.
c) The Author represents and warrants that the Article furnished to the Publisher has not been published previously. For purposes of this paragraph, making a copy of the Article accessible over the Internet, including, but not limited to, posting the Article to a database accessible over the Internet, does not constitute prior publication so long as the as such copy indicates that the Article is not in final form, such as by designating such copy to be a “draft,” a “working paper,” or “work-in-progress”. The Author agrees to hold harmless the Publisher, its licensees and distributees, from any claim, action, or proceeding alleging facts that constitute a breach of any warranty enumerated in this paragraph.
§4. TERM
a) The agreement was concluded for an unspecified time.
§5. PAYMENT
a) The Author agrees and acknowledges that the Author will receive no payment from the Publisher for use of the Article or the licenses granted in this Agreement.
b) The Publisher agrees and acknowledges that the Publisher will not receive any payment from the Author for publication by the Publisher.
§6. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
a) This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the Author and the Publisher with respect to the subject of this Agreement. This Agreement contains all of the warranties and agreements between the parties with respect to the Article, and each party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises, or agreements have been made by or on behalf of any party except those warranties and agreements embodied in this Agreement.
b) In all cases not regulated by this Agreement, legal provisions of Polish Copyright Act and Polish Civil Code shall apply.
c) Any disputes arising from the enforcement of obligations connected with this Agreement shall be resolved by a court competent for the headquarters of the Publisher.
d) Any amendments or additions to the Agreement must be made in writing and signed by authorised representative of both parties, otherwise being ineffective.
e) This Agreement is signed electronically and the submission of the article via the PRESSto platform is considered as the conclusion of the Agreement by the Author and the Publisher.
f) Clause for consent to the processing of personal data - general
g) The Author shall give his or her consent to the processing of their personal data in accordance with the Act of 10 May 2018 on the protection of personal data and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of persons physical in connection with the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46 / EC (General Data Protection Regulation) for the purpose and in connection with making publications available on the PRESSto scientific journals platform and DeGruyter platform, guaranteeing the security of services rendered, and improving them.
I HAVE READ AND AGREE FULLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.
The Author The Publisher