Eastwood v Wright

Eastwood v Wright

The trial judge was entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the bronchospasm occurred pre-intubation and was of such severity that a reasonable anaesthetist should have suspected an adverse drug reaction. The failure to investigate and warn constituted a breach of duty, and causation was established as subsequent injury would have been avoided with proper investigation and warning. The appellate court found no basis to overturn the trial judge's findings or preference for the claimant's expert evidence.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Stephanie Wright; Appellant/defendant: Dr Derek Eastwood
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (clinical Negligence) / Appeal From Trial Judgment on Liability Only
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; trial judgment on liability upheld.
Legal Topics
Clinical Negligence, Duty to Investigate Adverse Drug Reactions, Standard of Care for Anaesthetists, Causation in Medical Negligence
Medical Negligence Tort Law Clinical Negligence Duty to Investigate Adverse Drug Reactions Standard of Care for Anaesthetists Causation in Medical Negligence

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephanie Wright

Respondent/claimant

Dr Derek Eastwood

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (clinical Negligence) / Appeal From Trial Judgment on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the anaesthetist negligently failed to suspect and investigate an adverse drug reaction following bronchospasm during anaesthesia
  2. 2 Whether the failure to investigate and warn constituted a breach of duty
  3. 3 Whether causation was established between the breach and subsequent injury

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the bronchospasm occurred pre-intubation and was of such severity that a reasonable anaesthetist should have suspected an adverse drug reaction. The failure to investigate and warn constituted a breach of duty, and causation was established as subsequent injury would have been avoided with proper investigation and warning. The appellate court found no basis to overturn the trial judge's findings or preference for the claimant's expert evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; trial judgment on liability upheld.

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant on liability; damages to be assessed.