Chester v Afshar [2004]

Facts

• 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

Issue

• Could the defendant claim for the paralysis?

Decision

• Yes

Reasoning

• 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