The appellants appealed a jury verdict dismissing their medical negligence action arising from delayed diagnosis and treatment of an anastomotic leak following routine bowel surgery, which resulted in septic shock and bilateral below-knee amputations.
The jury found five defendants breached the standard of care but that none of the breaches caused the injuries.
The Court of Appeal addressed the proper causation test in delayed diagnosis cases involving multiple tortfeasors, finding that the trial judge's use of the word "necessary" from Clements in jury questions and instructions was problematic and that the phrase "caused or contributed to" should not have been rejected.
However, the court held that the jury clearly accepted the defence theory that a rare necrotizing infection, not the delay, caused the injuries, and no reformulation of questions or instructions would have changed the verdict.
