Chester v Afshar 
- The claimant asked about the potential risks of an operation
- The surgeon failed to warn about the 1% chance of being permanently paralysed (an inevitable consequence, not caused by negligence)
- The claimant was subsequently paralysed
- Could the defendant claim for the paralysis?
- The claimant did not need to prove that the operation would not have taken place if relevant advice had been given
- Dissent from Lord Hoffman and Lord Bingham, claiming that the case was a coincidence case and advice of warning would only have delayed the date of the operation, in which paralysis would still have occurred
Posted in Tort Law Revision Notes.
This page was last updated on 22nd April 2014