Thomas v Curley [2013] EWCA Civ 117 (26 February 2013)

Thomas v Curley [2013] EWCA Civ 117 (26 February 2013)

The judge was entitled to find negligence based on the evidence that the injury occurred during an uncomplicated procedure in an area remote from the operative site, with no explanation consistent with non-negligent conduct; the judge did not apply res ipsa loquitur but properly assessed the evidence and expert testimony.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 117
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Paula Thomas; Defendant/appellant: Paul Curley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Causation, Damages, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Expert Evidence, Disclosure
Medical Negligence Tort Law Breach of Duty Causation Damages Res Ipsa Loquitur Expert Evidence Disclosure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paula Thomas

Claimant/respondent

Paul Curley

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was negligent in causing an iatrogenic injury to the respondent's common bile duct during laparoscopic surgery
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was negligent in failing to require fluid balance and renal monitoring between 19th and 21st October 2005
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in law by applying res ipsa loquitur

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find negligence based on the evidence that the injury occurred during an uncomplicated procedure in an area remote from the operative site, with no explanation consistent with non-negligent conduct; the judge did not apply res ipsa loquitur but properly assessed the evidence and expert testimony.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant in the sum of £92,391.00 is upheld
  • Permission to adduce further evidence (the diary) on appeal is refused