Quinn (minor) -v- Mid Western Health Board & anor [2005] IESC 19 (08 April 2005)

Quinn (minor) -v- Mid Western Health Board & anor [2005] IESC 19 (08 April 2005)

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof on causation. The trial judge was entitled to prefer the neuroradiological evidence that the injury occurred at 28-30 weeks, before any possible intervention, and that earlier delivery would not have prevented the brain damage. The 'but for' test of causation applies, and there were no special circumstances to justify a relaxation of this standard. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order affirmed.

Citation
[2005] IESC 19
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Anne Marie Quinn (a minor) suing by her mother and next friend, Kathleen Quinn; Defendant/respondent: Mid Western Health Board; Defendant/respondent: Donal O’Sullivan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (medical Negligence/personal Injury) / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Causation in Negligence, Burden of Proof, Standard of Proof, Loss of Chance, Expert Evidence
Tort Law Medical Negligence Personal Injury Causation in Negligence Burden of Proof Standard of Proof Loss of Chance Expert Evidence

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

Parties

Anne Marie Quinn (a minor) suing by her mother and next friend, Kathleen Quinn

Plaintiff/appellant

Mid Western Health Board

Defendant/respondent

Donal O’Sullivan

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (medical Negligence/personal Injury) / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the admitted negligence in failing to deliver the plaintiff earlier caused or materially contributed to her brain damage (PVL)
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff discharged the burden of proof on causation on the balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether the 'but for' test or a relaxed approach to causation applies in this case

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof on causation. The trial judge was entitled to prefer the neuroradiological evidence that the injury occurred at 28-30 weeks, before any possible intervention, and that earlier delivery would not have prevented the brain damage. The 'but for' test of causation applies, and there were no special circumstances to justify a relaxation of this standard. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim dismissed
  • Costs awarded in favour of the defendants