The appellants appealed the dismissal of their dental malpractice action, arguing that the respondent's fracturing of the appellant's jaw during a wisdom tooth extraction raised an inference of negligence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur no longer applies.
The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's acceptance of expert evidence that the standard of care was met and that a jaw fracture is a known complication of such surgery, particularly given the appellant's severe periodontal disease.
