Jones v Manchester Corporation [1952] 2 QB 852
Tort law – Negligence – Medical practitioner
Facts
During the course of operating on a patient with facial burns, a newly qualified doctor administered a drug which she had no thorough knowledge of, without supervision, and as a result of this the patient died. The hospital board employed the doctor in a master and servant relationship. The trial judge found that both the medical board and the doctor had been negligent and ordered the board to effectively provide the doctor with a full indemnity.
Issues
The issue in the case was to understand if, and to what extent the doctor and medical board were liable for the death of the patient. If they were liable, it was important to assess whether the doctor was required by an express or implied term in the employment contract to indemnify the medical board from liability from a third-party. The Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act 1935 provides the court with discretion to order any indemnity between master and servant in such circumstances.
Decision/Outcome
The court held that a servant has a duty to serve his master to the best of his ability but this is not a promise to provide an indemnity against third-party claims for which he may be liable as a result of his actions. The court held that the hospital board had contributed to the negligence and that there was no implied or express term in a contract that required the doctor to indemnify the medical board. The court did however, state that the mistake was inexcusable even for an inexperienced and therefore allotted her twenty percent of the total responsibility.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary is broadly accurate as a description of the 1952 Court of Appeal decision in Jones v Manchester Corporation [1952] 2 QB 852. However, readers should note one material point: the statutory basis discussed in the article, the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act 1935, has been substantially superseded. The relevant provisions on contribution between tortfeasors are now governed by the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, which replaced the tortfeasor contribution provisions of the 1935 Act. The 1978 Act remains in force and is the current legislative framework for contribution claims between co-defendants in England and Wales. The case itself retains historical authority on the principles of vicarious liability and the limits of implied indemnity in employment relationships, but any modern analysis of contribution should refer to the 1978 Act rather than the 1935 Act. Additionally, the article’s summary omits the Court of Appeal’s reversal of the trial judge’s order for a full indemnity in favour of the doctor, which is a significant part of the actual outcome and relevant to understanding the case’s contribution to the law.
