Keren-Paz, T (2018) Compensating injury to autonomy in English negligence law: Inconsistent recognition. Medical Law Review. ISSN 1464-3790

[img] Text
T Keren Paz - Compensating injury to autonomy in English negligence law.pdf - Accepted Version
Restricted to Repository staff only until 6 February 2020.
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial.

Download (618kB)

Abstract

Recently in Shaw v Kovac, the Court of Appeal seemed to have rejected a standalone injury to autonomy (ITA) as actionable in negligence, in an informed consent case. In this article, I argue that Shaw can be explained away, and that English law recognizes ITA as actionable in a series of cases, some of which—Bhamra, Tracey, and Yearworth—were not hitherto understood to do so. However, the under-theorization in the cases leads to inconsistencies. Like cases (Rees/Yearworth; Chester/Tracey) are not treated alike; ITA is misunderstood to be about ‘religious offence’ (Bhamra) and property loss (Yearworth) and worse still, the more serious type 2 ITA (Rees) gives rise to a weaker remedy (of exceptional nature aside) than the less serious type 1 injury (Chester). A better understanding of the different manifestations of ITA will lead to results which are both more consistent and more justified on the merit.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: This is the accepted author manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via OUP at https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwy009 Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.
Uncontrolled Keywords: actionable damage; autonomy; informed consent; negligence; reproductive autonomy
Subjects: K Law > K Law (General)
K Law > KD England and Wales
Divisions: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences > School of Law
Depositing User: Symplectic
Date Deposited: 20 Feb 2018 10:27
Last Modified: 08 Jun 2018 11:03
URI: http://eprints.keele.ac.uk/id/eprint/4492

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item