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

Forgotten your password?

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

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


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.


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