Reibl v. Hughes

Reibl v. Hughes

Failure to disclose material risks of a proposed surgical procedure constitutes negligence rather than battery where the operation performed is the one consented to; materiality and causation are to be assessed by the trier of fact taking into account patient‑specific considerations, and causation should be tested by whether a reasonable person in the patient’s position would have declined the surgery—on these grounds the trial judge’s findings of breach and causation were upheld and judgment restored.

Citation
[1980] 2 SCR 880
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): John Reibl; Respondent (defendant): Robert A. Hughes
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 October 1980
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Medical Negligence/tort / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada — Final Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of Court of Appeal set aside; judgment of trial court restored holding defendant liable in negligence; costs to appellant.
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Battery Vs Negligence, Duty of Disclosure, Causation Standard, Material Risk Disclosure
Source Language
English
Medical Negligence Tort Law Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Health Law Informed Consent Battery Vs Negligence Duty of Disclosure +2 more

Case Brief

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Reibl

Appellant (plaintiff)

Robert A. Hughes

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Medical Negligence/tort / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada — Final Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to disclose material risks vitiates consent and creates battery or gives rise to negligence only
  2. 2 What is the scope and standard of the surgeon's duty to disclose material risks
  3. 3 Whether causation should be assessed subjectively (patient) or objectively (reasonable person in patient’s position)

Ratio Decidendi

Failure to disclose material risks of a proposed surgical procedure constitutes negligence rather than battery where the operation performed is the one consented to; materiality and causation are to be assessed by the trier of fact taking into account patient‑specific considerations, and causation should be tested by whether a reasonable person in the patient’s position would have declined the surgery—on these grounds the trial judge’s findings of breach and causation were upheld and judgment restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of Court of Appeal set aside; judgment of trial court restored holding defendant liable in negligence; costs to appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Order of the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside