{"title":"第二受害者索赔失败:怀尔德诉绍森德大学医院NHS基金会信托","authors":"Sejal Mehta","doi":"10.1177/1356262215584706B","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ably an equitable ruling because the claimant has actually lost nothing and suffered nothing as a consequence of the technical breach. The position is, however, very different if the claimant would not have been detained but for the error. In such cases, it is entirely appropriate that damages will be substantial because the claimant will have lost liberty and possibly suffered financially as a consequence of being unlawfully detained.","PeriodicalId":89664,"journal":{"name":"Clinical risk","volume":"21 1","pages":"16 - 17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262215584706B","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Secondary victim claim fails: Wild v Southend University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust\",\"authors\":\"Sejal Mehta\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1356262215584706B\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ably an equitable ruling because the claimant has actually lost nothing and suffered nothing as a consequence of the technical breach. The position is, however, very different if the claimant would not have been detained but for the error. In such cases, it is entirely appropriate that damages will be substantial because the claimant will have lost liberty and possibly suffered financially as a consequence of being unlawfully detained.\",\"PeriodicalId\":89664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical risk\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"16 - 17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262215584706B\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical risk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356262215584706B\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical risk","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356262215584706B","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Secondary victim claim fails: Wild v Southend University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
ably an equitable ruling because the claimant has actually lost nothing and suffered nothing as a consequence of the technical breach. The position is, however, very different if the claimant would not have been detained but for the error. In such cases, it is entirely appropriate that damages will be substantial because the claimant will have lost liberty and possibly suffered financially as a consequence of being unlawfully detained.