- Published on
Saunders v Leeds Western HA (1985) -Res Ipsa Loquitur & Rebuttal
I. Core Principle:
I. Core Principle:
- Rebuttal Standard for Res Ipsa Loquitur: To successfully rebut the inference of negligence arising from res ipsa loquitur, the defendant's explanation must be reasonable.
- Plaintiff: A four-year-old girl undergoing surgery for a congenitally dislocated hip.
- Injury: Suffered a heart attack during the operation, resulting in permanent brain damage.
- Plaintiff's Argument: Applied res ipsa loquitur, asserting that a healthy child's heart does not arrest under anesthesia without negligence.
- Defendant's Explanation: Proposed a "paradoxical air embolism" traveled from the surgical site to the heart, blocking a coronary artery.
- Holding: The High Court established liability against the defendant.
- Reasoning: The defendant's explanation (air embolism) was rejected because the court found that a proper monitoring system would have provided forewarning of the problem.
- Therefore, the absence of such warning indicated negligence, failing to adequately rebut the res ipsa loquitur inference.
- The defendant's duty extends to having appropriate monitoring systems in place. The failure to do so can be evidence of negligence.
- A technically feasible explanation for an injury might not be sufficient to rebut res ipsa loquitur if there were preventable factors involved.
- For rebutting res ipsa loquitur, the explanation needs to be reasonable and, in cases involving medical procedures, demonstrate that all appropriate precautions and monitoring were in place.
0 Comments