Log in
Log in
We’ve created a FREE checklist for you to maximise your chances of getting high grades!
Join our law study groups to get free study resources and tips on how to get high grades in your exams and courseworks
Chester v Afshar [2004] 3 WLR 927
Chester v Afshar [2004] 3 WLR 927 is a Tort Law case, concerning medical negligence and focuses on causation.
The claimant had a bad back pain which limited her ability to walk. A doctor, the defendant, advised her to do a surgery. However, the surgery had a 1% chance to worsen the issue. Moreover, the doctor did not inform the patient about the possible risks. The claimant agreed to do the surgery and fell within the 1%. She argued that she may not have consented to the surgery if she was aware of the possible risks.
The issue in Chester v Afshar [2004] 3 WLR 927 was that whether or not the doctor was liable for the patients worsened back pain.
At first instance, the judge determined that even though the doctor was not negligent in his surgical performance, he was liable for having failed to inform the claimant of the risks. If the operation had been performed on another date, her injuries may not have been worsened. At first appeal, the Court of Appeal approved the initial decision.
The defendant appealed.
He submitted that there was no causation as the possibility of the claimant to have consented to the surgery at some point did not change the fact that it bore the risks.
The House of Lords dismissed the appeal (in a 3 – 2 split decision).
The defendant had failed to carry out his professional duty and advise the patient about all the possible risks of the surgery. The ‘But for’ test was satisfied since the claimant would not have had the operation if the warning had been given. However, the risk of which she should have been warned was not created by the failure to warn. Nevertheless, a doctor has a duty to inform the patient about all the possible risks so that the patient makes an informed choice whether to undergo the treatment recommended.
In conclusion, the judge held that the claimant deserved a remedy.
References: [2005] 1 AC 134, [2004] UKHL 41, Times 19-Oct-2004, [2004] 3 WLR 927, 67 BMLR 66
Read our notes and other cases on Breach of Duty and Causation for more information on Negligence.
Sell your Study Materials to Generate Value from your Knowledge
Get Study Materials and Tutoring
to Improve your Grades
Quick Links:
Become a Content Creator
Blog
Our Team:
About Us
Contact Us
Our Partners
Legal:
User Terms & Conditions
Content Creator Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Cookies Policy
Stay in Touch with Us:
We have dedicated social media pages for law students. If you’re studying law, follow us on the pages below for valuable free content designed to help law students achieve top grades.
Copyright © 2024 - Studycrowd.ai is a trading name of
SimpleStudyingAI Inc., a company registered in Delaware United States.
SimpleStudyingAI.Inc. is registered at
1111B S Governors Ave, #21850, Dover DE 19904.
Copyright © 2019 - 2025 StudyCrowd.AI is a trading name of StudyCrowd.AI Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Company registration No: 12373336. Registered office: Unit 6 Queens Yard, White Post Lane, London, England, E9 5EN.