What Constitutes a "Reasonable Body" in Negligence Cases?

In negligence claims, particularly in medical and professional contexts, the actions of the defendant are often assessed against a "reasonable body" of opinion. This principle was established in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957), which remains a cornerstone of negligence law. Below is an explanation of what constitutes a reasonable body, how it is evaluated, and its role in determining the standard of care.

Definition of a "Reasonable Body"

A "reasonable body" refers to a group of professionals in the same field or specialty whose opinion is considered logical, defensible, and consistent with accepted practices. It does not mean a majority or consensus of professionals but rather a group whose views can withstand rational scrutiny.

Key criteria include:

1. Relevance: The group must have expertise and experience relevant to the situation or field in question.

2. Logic: Their approach must be based on sound reasoning and evidence.

3. Professional Acceptance: The opinion should align with generally accepted practices, even if it represents a minority view.

Case Law on "Reasonable Body"

1. Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)

   • This case established that a practitioner is not negligent if their actions are supported by a responsible body of professional opinion. The court ruled that the key test is whether the defendant acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a reasonable body of professionals skilled in that field.

2. Defreitas v. O’Brien (1995)

   • In this case, the defendant’s actions were supported by only 11 out of 1,000 specialists. The court held that this small group still constituted a reasonable body because their opinion was logical and based on professional expertise.

3. Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority (1997)

   • This case refined the Bolam principle, stating that the court could reject a "reasonable body" opinion if it was not capable of withstanding logical analysis. This ensures that reliance on a reasonable body does not shield practices that are irrational or unsupported by evidence.

Evaluating a Reasonable Body

When determining whether an opinion qualifies as reasonable, courts consider the following:

1. Specialist Knowledge

   • Does the group have sufficient expertise in the relevant field? A group of general practitioners may not constitute a reasonable body for assessing the actions of a specialist.

2. Professional Standing

   • Are the members recognised as credible and competent within their profession?

3. Rationale and Evidence

   • Is the opinion grounded in evidence-based practices, guidelines, or well-reasoned logic?

4. Consistency

   • Is the opinion consistent with accepted practices, even if it represents a minority?

5. Adaptability to Context

   • Does the opinion consider the specific circumstances of the case, including the resources available to the defendant at the time?

Conclusion

A "reasonable body" is not necessarily a majority but must consist of competent professionals whose opinion is logical and defensible. Courts rely on this principle to ensure fairness, balancing professional autonomy with accountability. However, as clarified in Bolitho, a court retains the final say in determining whether the opinion is rational and applicable, ensuring that a "reasonable body" cannot justify practices that lack sound reasoning.