HomeAccessibilityIndependent approachTurnaround timeCommunication skillsFee structures
solicitors -  private legal work

Asbestosis
Building disputes
Compensation claims
Contract advice
Conveyancing
Debt recovery
Discrimination
Dismissal law
Employment
Harassment
Injury claims
Insurance
Libel
Litigation
Medical negligence
Negligence (general)
Planning
Professional negligence
Redundancy
Unfair dismissal
Wills & probate

Surgeon failing to warn claimant of inherent risk of paralysis in lumbar surgery - surgery performed without negligence but risk eventually - claimant sufficiently satisfying causation test by proving she would not, if properly informed, have undergone surgery when she did


Following the defendant's advice, the claimant consented to surgery which resulted in partial paralysis.

In negligence proceedings, the judge found that, although surgery was not performed negligently, the defendant failed to warn the claimant of the inherent risk which occurred.

The judge also found that, if warned, she would not have undergone surgery then but would have sought further advice. He concluded that the necessary causal link was established and gave judgment in her favour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal. The defendant appealed.

Martin Spencer QC and Kristina Stern (instructed by Hempsons, London) for the defendant, Adrian Whitfield QC and Jacqueline Perry (instructed by Eversheds, Newcastle upon Tyne) for the claimant.

Held that, since the claimant did not assert that, if informed, she would never have consented to the operation and since failure to warn was not the effective cause of the injury, the claimant could not succeed on conventional causation principles, but that, dismissing the appeal (Lord Bingham and Lord Hoffman dissenting), the scope of the doctor's duty to warn was closely connected with the need for the claimant's consent and her right to exercise an informed choice as to whether and, if so, when and by whom to receive treatment; that since the injury was within the scope of that duty and was the result of the risk of which she was entitled to be warned, it was to be regarded as caused by the defendant's failure; and that, accordingly, justice required a narrow modification of traditional principles to vindicate her right.

Chester v Afshar: HL (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffman, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe): 14 October 2004


"The Law Society's Gazette" 11th November 2004



E-mail us with details of your enquiry on
medical-negligence@humphreys.co.uk.
Include your telephone number,
fax number and address.

Tel (0117) (international +44 117) 929 2662 
Fax (0117) (international +44 117) 929 2722



Relevant material

Surgeon failing to warn claimant

Negligence in surgeon's failure

NHS faces £9bn bill for negligence claims

NHS clinical negligence bill rises to £4.4bn

Doctors 'do not know best' in negligence cases

Victim of medical negligence

Professional Negligence pre-action protocol

Negligence in failure to warn patient of slight inherent risk in surgery


NEGLIGENCE – CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE – PERSONAL INJURY – PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

Humphreys & Co., solicitors Bristol



Click here for information about the work we do for commercial clients.

© Copyright Humphreys & Co., solicitors

Home Page