Masson v Qld

• 1. Torts
  2. › Negligence
  3. › Standard of care
  4. › Professional negligence
  5. › Ambulance officers
  6. › Standard not as high as medical practitioners or emergency physicians
  7. › Whether ambulance officer departed from clinical practice manual
  8. › Whether consistent with reasonable care for ambulance officer to depart from manual guidance
• 1. Torts
  2. › Negligence
  3. › Standard of care
  4. › Role of professional practice and guidelines
  5. › Clinical practice manual for ambulance officers
  6. › Whether responsible body of medical opinion test determinative of standard of care
  7. › Whether ambulance officer competent to assess competing medical opinions
  8. › Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479
• 1. Torts
  2. › Negligence
  3. › Breach of duty
  4. › Ambulance officers
  5. › Treatment of severe asthma
  6. › Whether officer considered administration of adrenaline as required by manual
  7. › Whether trial judge's finding of clinical assessment supported by evidence
• 1. Appeal
  2. › Standard of appellate review
  3. › Findings of fact
  4. › Whether trial judge's finding that ambulance officer considered adrenaline was supported by the evidence
  5. › Whether finding inconsistent with witness statements and oral evidence

Quick Take