0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Chester v Afshar CA

7 June 2002
The issues

Medical negligence – Duty to warn – Informed consent

The facts

Claimant had gone into hospital where an operation by a Neurosurgeon, the Defendant, was carried out. It was found as a fact by the Court below that the Neuro-Surgeon had not been negligent in the conduct of his operation. However, there had been in the ordinary event a slight risk of paralysis. The Claimant had not been warned of this risk. She had a fear of surgery. She raised the question of the Surgeon as to all the horror stories she had heard about surgery and had received what she regarded as an off-hand reply to the effect that “well I have never crippled anybody yet%u2026 you might be my first”. She gave evidence that had she known of the risks of surgery because of her fear of surgery generally, she would have had a second or even third opinion. Unfortunately, she did in fact suffer from paralysis as a consequence of the operation.

The decision

Doctors were obliged to give appropriate information to their patients so as to assist the patient in deciding whether or not to have any particular operation. A failure to inform did not mean that the patient’s consent was vitiated and that therefore the operation was an assault (Chatterton -v- Gerson). The claim was correctly brought in negligence rather than in trespass. If a Doctor failed to warn of these risks and the operation was one which, had she been warned she would not have consented to, and the very risk that he had failed to warn her about materialised and caused her injury, then the Doctor was rightly liable in negligence. Chappel -v- Hart followed.

focus on...

Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.

View

Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.

View

Legal updates

Insurance annual review 2019-2020

Welcome to our review of 2019 as we look ahead to what is on the horizon for the insurance sector in 2020.

View

Legal updates

Financial Services – ‘Duty of Care’ Bill: consumer protection or damp squib?

The Financial Services Duty of Care Bill (the “Bill”) was introduced into the House of Lords in October 2019 and had its second reading on 9 January 2020.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up