Ridge v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EWHC 898 (KB)
Cases involving self-harm and suicide are among the most distressing in the field of clinical negligence arising as they do from usually prolonged periods of mental distress and a history of complex and difficult to treat needs.
In this article Patrick West will explore the difficulties faced by claimants and defendants in assessing breach of duty and liability in claims where the question of whether adequate risk assessments of self-harm and suicide were carried out are front and centre in terms of the issues. Such cases frequently revolve around the view of clinicians of the need to admit to inpatient care or whether it is safe to treat a mental health patient at home or in the community.
In Ridge v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust, a clinical negligence claim was brought against the Trust, arising from serious injuries sustained by Benjamin Ridge who was a mental health patient who climbed an electricity pylon following a psychiatric assessment. The claim was dismissed at trial.
Early morning of the 29th April 2021 Benjamin Ridge entered a field close to his home in Weymouth climbed the electricity pylon and suffered a significant electric shock. He was immediately rendered unconscious and fell 20 feet to the ground suffering severe electrical burns, fractures to two vertebrae, and subsequently underwent an above-knee amputation of the right leg.
His ongoing condition involved back pain, phantom limb pain and nerve damage to three limbs, with physical disability and restricted mobility from having to use a wheelchair.
The key history in the case was that, in the days preceding this incident, Mr Ridge had had extensive contact with the Defendant’s mental health support services due to his depression and suicidal thoughts including a face-to-face assessment on 27th April 2021 with a locum Community Mental Health Team (‘CMHT’) Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr Trendafilov.
Dr Trendafilov had concluded in his assessment that Mr Ridge was suffering from Depressive Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (‘PTSD’) and Generalised Anxiety Disorder, all of which he assessed as “moderate” and that the risk of self-harm was “moderate”. The doctor increased Mr Ridge’s dosage of anti-depressant medication (Mirtazapine) from 30mg to 45mg, and prescribed Zolpidem sleeping tablets to aid his night-time sleep and also arranged a further face-to-face appointment with Mr Ridge for the 30th April. Crucially, he did not refer Mr Ridge to the Defendant’s Home Treatment Team (‘HTT’) for an assessment as to his suitability for admission as a hospital inpatient.
Mr Ridge brought his claim on the basis that Dr Trendafilov should in fact have assessed both issues as ‘severe’ leading to an inpatient admission. Such an assessment ought to have resulted in the Claimant being referred to the HTT for assessment of his suitability to be admitted as an inpatient.
The Claimant alleged that had such a referral been made, whether on 27th or 28th April 2021, the HTT would have assessed him as being in need of immediate admission to a hospital and that he would in fact have been immediately admitted as and he would have been unable to climb the pylon early on 29th April resulting in his injuries.
The Defendant argued that the assessment of ‘moderate’ rather than ‘severe’ was within the range of reasonable and respectable psychiatric opinion and that the Claimant’s symptoms and presentation were not so acute that Mr Ridge would have been admitted as an inpatient.
Furthermore, the Defendant argued that even if the Claimant had been assessed as suitable for admission as an inpatient, because of the demand for such places it is highly unlikely that a suitable bed would have been found for him before the 29th April 2021.