- Published on
Eyre v Measday (1985) CA: Study Guide
Case Summary: This case concerns a medical negligence claim where a woman (plaintiff) became pregnant after a laparoscopic sterilization procedure performed by a doctor (defendant). The core issue is whether the doctor breached a contract by failing to inform the patient of the small but existent risk of failure (2-6/1000).
Key Facts:
Case Summary: This case concerns a medical negligence claim where a woman (plaintiff) became pregnant after a laparoscopic sterilization procedure performed by a doctor (defendant). The core issue is whether the doctor breached a contract by failing to inform the patient of the small but existent risk of failure (2-6/1000).
Key Facts:
- Procedure: Laparoscopic sterilization.
- Consent: Plaintiff signed a consent form. The doctor explained the procedure and its irreversibility.
- Omission: The doctor did not inform the plaintiff of the small (2-6/1000) risk of pregnancy after the procedure, despite this being standard medical practice at the time.
- Outcome: The sterilization was initially successful but later failed, resulting in pregnancy.
- Contractual Obligations: The court determined the contract was for the performance of a specific procedure (laparoscopic sterilization), which the defendant successfully executed with reasonable skill and care. The contract did not implicitly guarantee the procedure's success.
- Implied Terms: While an implied term of reasonable skill and care exists in medical procedures, there's no implied warranty guaranteeing the outcome. The court emphasized the inherent uncertainty of medical procedures. A guarantee of success would require explicit agreement, not just shared expectation of success.
- Breach of Contract: The defendant did not breach the contract as the agreed-upon procedure was performed competently. The failure to inform about a low risk of failure, while possibly negligent, didn't constitute a breach of the contractual obligation. This is a key distinction.
- Medical Contracts: Medical procedures involve a contract for performance, not for a guaranteed result. Success is never guaranteed in medical procedures.
- Implied Terms: The court clarifies the distinction between implied terms of skill and care and implied warranties of outcome. The former is standard, the latter requires express agreement.
- Disclosure of Risks: While this case doesn't address negligence directly, it highlights the importance of patient consent based on full information about both the procedure and its risks, however small. It implies that a failure to disclose risks, even small ones, might form the basis of a claim for negligence, separate from a breach
0 Comments