The appellant physician performed ear surgeries using a new antiseptic introduced by the hospital, which caused profound hearing loss in two patients.
The hospital settled with the patients and sought contribution and indemnity from the appellant, arguing he was negligent in failing to inquire about the new antiseptic's properties.
The trial judge found the appellant 50% liable.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding no evidence that the appellant breached the standard of care or that further inquiries would have revealed the antiseptic's ototoxicity prior to the surgeries.
The hospital's claim was dismissed.
