The plaintiff had sustained a lesion of the brachial plexus after a successful operation to remove her gall bladder. She claimed that this must have been occasioned by hyper abduction of her left arm by the anaesthetist at some point during the administration, overseeing or conclusion of anaesthesia. The anaesthetist gave an explanation of his practice in carrying out anaesthesia which could not have involved hyper abduction of the plaintiff’s left arm. The judge accepted his evidence. The injury was therefore one for which the defendant was unable to give an explanation.
Held: The patient’s appeal failed. The court had been entitled to find that the anaesthetist had exercised all due care in carrying out the procedure even though that left the injury unexplained. In medical negligence cases, where full evidence, including evidence from experts on both sides, has been heard, it is only in a rare case that the maxim res ipsa loquitur will assist the court: ‘For my part, I am doubtful whether it is of much assistance in medical negligence, at any rate when all the evidence in the case had been adduced. But even if Mr Stembridge is right in saying that at that stage the maxim applies, it is always open to a defendant to rebut a case of res ipsa loquitor either by giving an explanation of what happened which is inconsistent with negligence . . or by showing that the defendant exercised all reasonable care.’
Judges:
Stuart Smith LJ
Citations:
[1995] 6 Med LR 355
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Lillywhite and Another v University College London Hospitals’ NHS Trust CA 7-Dec-2005
The claimant sought damages for severe injuries suffered by their child at birth, and now appealed finding that the doctor had not been negligent. The allegation was simply that the injury could not have occurred but for negligence in the defendant. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Professional Negligence
Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.237477
