Doctor – Negligence. The second defendant doctor was liable in negligence for the psychiatric damage which the claimant had sustained and its consequences by virtue of the religious practices and religious doctrines he had imposed on her. However, the Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim against the first defendant surgery proprietors, held that they were not vicariously liable for that conduct, as religious proselytisation could not fairly be regarded as a reasonably incidental risk to the business of carrying on a doctors' surgery.