Roe v minister of health 1954

A defendant need only have guarded against the foreseeable. If the reasonable person would not foresee a harmful consequence of an action, then a defendant will not be negligent in failing to take precautions. In Roe V Minister of Health (1954), a spinal anaesthetic had become contaminated through invisible cracks in the glass vial.When used, Paralysed two patients.

It was held that the cracks were not foreseeable given the scientific knowledge of the time. The foreseeability of harm is clearly a major factor in determining how a reasonable person would act, and although actual foresight by the defendant is generally irrelevant,a reasonable person would not have taken precautions against a risk of which reasonable people in the profession were not aware. There the defendant was not liable.