Everard -v- HSE [2017] IECA 114 (07 April 2017)

Everard -v- HSE [2017] IECA 114 (07 April 2017)

The High Court judge failed to make express findings on the presence of shoulder dystocia or the use of excessive traction, and his causation finding (that the injury was due to the posterior position of the shoulder) was not supported by the evidence. The trial judge did not adequately engage with the evidence or apply the correct standard of proof to the pleaded claim. Therefore, the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim cannot be upheld and a retrial is required.

Citation
[2017] IECA 114
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Sophie Everard (a minor suing by her mother and next friend, Lisa Everard); Defendant/respondent: Health Service Executive
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
07 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
High Court order set aside; retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Standard of Proof in Civil Cases, Causation in Medical Negligence, Shoulder Dystocia, Erb’s Palsy, Obstetric Injury, Judicial Reasoning Requirements
Medical Negligence Tort Law Standard of Proof in Civil Cases Causation in Medical Negligence Shoulder Dystocia Erb’s Palsy Obstetric Injury Judicial Reasoning Requirements

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sophie Everard (a minor suing by her mother and next friend, Lisa Everard)

Plaintiff/appellant

Health Service Executive

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge applied the correct standard of proof in assessing negligence and causation.
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge made sufficient findings on the presence of shoulder dystocia and the use of excessive traction.
  3. 3 Whether the causation finding (injury due to posterior shoulder position) was supported by evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court judge failed to make express findings on the presence of shoulder dystocia or the use of excessive traction, and his causation finding (that the injury was due to the posterior position of the shoulder) was not supported by the evidence. The trial judge did not adequately engage with the evidence or apply the correct standard of proof to the pleaded claim. Therefore, the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim cannot be upheld and a retrial is required.

Court Disposition

High Court order set aside; retrial ordered

Orders

  • Order of the High Court dismissing the plaintiff’s claim is set aside
  • A retrial is ordered