Child v. Vancouver General Hospital et al.

Child v. Vancouver General Hospital et al.

Majority held the jury verdict was not perverse and there was no misdirection: whether the risk was a real risk or a farfetched possibility was a factual question for the jury, and a reasonably capable nurse could rely on the surgeon’s contemporaneous assessment; therefore the appeal must be dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1970] SCR 477
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Frederick Albert Child (by Committee Mable Charity Wilce Child); Defendant Respondent: The Vancouver General Hospital; Defendant Respondent: Charleen Tennessy
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Negligence (personal Injury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Foreseeability, Standard of Care for Nurses, Jury Instruction, Appellate Review of Jury Verdict
Source Language
english
Torts Medical Negligence Vicarious Liability Duty of Care Foreseeability Standard of Care for Nurses Jury Instruction Appellate Review of Jury Verdict

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frederick Albert Child (by Committee Mable Charity Wilce Child)

Plaintiff Appellant

The Vancouver General Hospital

Defendant Respondent

Charleen Tennessy

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort Negligence (personal Injury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury verdict was perverse/unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on foreseeability and standard of care
  3. 3 Whether nurse’s reliance on the surgeon’s opinion met the standard of a reasonably careful nurse

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the jury verdict was not perverse and there was no misdirection: whether the risk was a real risk or a farfetched possibility was a factual question for the jury, and a reasonably capable nurse could rely on the surgeon’s contemporaneous assessment; therefore the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs