By virtue of the landmark decision in Hedley Byrne v. Heller, now some two decades ago, members of many professions whose only possible transgressions consist of orally inflicted economic loss suddenly faced liability towards persons so injured, even in the absence of a contractual relationship. Since that time liability for professional negligence has become one of the fastest growing areas of law, and professional indemnity insurance, which had always been important in the event of action for breach of contract, rapidly took on a new significance. The circular and somewhat paradoxical result of these developments has been the willingness of the courts to find liability for acts in relation to which the judges believe that insurance does, or ought to, exist. Unfortunately, little regard is paid to the coverage granted by liability insurance, and the courts may often be guided by intuition rather than by factors such as standard terms available, deterrence and the notion of the cheapest insurer. Mr Jess’s book, which attempts to bridge the gap between potential liabilities and available insurance coverage, is thus most timely for both the professions and the judiciary.

In a lengthy Chapter 1 Mr Jess outlines the scope of liability for professional negligence, discussing by way of introduction vicarious liability, the standard of care required of professionals and exclusion of liability. This is followed by a clear statement of the law as applied to 10 groups of professionals, namely accountants, architects, auctioneers, barristers, company directors, engineers, estate agents, solicitors, stockbrokers and surveyors and valuers. But where are the medical practitioners? It is of course true that doctors’ indemnities are not handled by conventional insurers but by the Medical Defence Union. It is also true that, according to Megarry, VC, the MDU does not carry on an insurance business. However, that decision is hardly credible, as the reviewer has argued elsewhere, and in any event the meaning of MDU “policies” is surely as important as that of ordinary liability insurances. The omission of doctors is of additional general importance, for if guidance as to the broad judicial attitude towards the professions in negligence cases is to be sought, one need look no further than the recent epidemic of hospital cases,