Helling v. Carey, 83 Wash. 2d 514, 519 P.2d 981 (1974)
Helling v. Carey is a pioneering case in medical malpractice law, especially in the context of professional standards and the role of customary practice.
Whether a physician is liable for medical malpractice when adhering to an existing customary practice that fails to protect the patient from foreseeable harm?
The court established that adherence to customary medical practice does not automatically shield a physician from negligence liability; a practice must meet a reasonable standard of care in protecting patient safety.
The Washington Supreme Court held that the defendants were liable for failing to provide proper care by not conducting a simple, affordable test that could have detected glaucoma earlier, irrespective of the customary age screening guidelines.
Helling v. Carey remains a cornerstone case illustrating the principle that professional custom is not an absolute defense in malpractice cases. This case prompts law students to critically evaluate the intersection between customary practice and reasonable care, illustrating the evolution of legal doctrine towards a more protective stance for patients and clients. It is an essential precedent highlighting judicial willingness to question and surpass traditional norms when necessary to protect public health and safety.