Bolam Test
Definition
The UK standard for medical negligence from Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) 1 WLR 582: a doctor is not negligent if they acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion skilled in that art, even if other bodies of opinion would have acted differently.
- Source case
- Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Standard applies to
- Medical negligence claims
Common questions
What is the Bolam test?+
The Bolam test is a legal standard from a 1957 UK court case that defines medical negligence. It says a doctor is not negligent if they followed a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion in that field, even if other doctors would have acted differently.
How do courts use the Bolam test to assess medical care?+
Courts apply this standard to determine whether a medical professional's decision falls within the range of acceptable practice. If the doctor's choice matches what a responsible body of medical experts would consider appropriate, the doctor is protected from a negligence finding, even if disagreement exists about the best approach.
Does the Bolam test require all doctors to follow the same treatment?+
No. The test specifically allows for different approaches. A doctor cannot be found negligent just because other doctors would have made a different clinical choice, as long as the doctor's decision reflects accepted medical practice among competent professionals.
Related terms
- Bolitho Qualification
- The qualification to Bolam from Bolitho v. City and Hackney HA (1997) 4 All ER 771: the responsible body of medical opinion...
- BNS § 106
- Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, reproducing the substance of IPC § 304A (causing death by negligence). Sub-section (1) applies...
- BSA 2023 § 39
- Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, the provision governing expert opinion evidence in Indian courts. Replaced Indian Evidence Act 1872...
- Daubert Standard
- The US federal evidentiary standard (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993) requiring that expert testimony be based on scientifically valid methods with...
- Frye Standard
- The US legal test for admissibility of scientific evidence, originating from Frye v. United States (1923), which required that a technique be...
- Helling V. Carey (1974)
- Washington Supreme Court case in which ophthalmologist Thomas Carey was held negligent for not performing tonometry on a patient under 40, despite...
- Jacob Mathew Test
- The framework from Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1 for criminal medical negligence under IPC § 304A (now...
- Martin D'Souza Safeguard
- The procedural protection from Martin D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) 3 SCC 1 requiring that before registering a criminal case against a...
- Montgomery V. Lanarkshire (2015)
- UK Supreme Court case replacing the Bolam test on risk disclosure with a patient-centred test: a doctor must take reasonable care to...
- NMC (India)
- The National Medical Commission, established under the NMC Act 2019, replacing the Medical Council of India. Comprises four boards (UGMEB, PGMEB, ARB,...
- R V. Turner (1975)
- The foundational UK Court of Appeal authority on expert-witness admissibility. Expert evidence is admissible only where it deals with matters outside the...
Explained in these topics
- Medical Negligence and the Duty of CareThe UK standard for medical negligence from Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) 1 WLR 582: a doctor is not negligent if they acted in accordan...
- The Medico-Legal Expert in CourtThe standard for assessing whether a medical professional's decision was within the range of acceptable practice, from Bolam v. Friern HMC (1957). A doctor is...