In failure-to-warn medical negligence cases, the requisite form of warning must be established with reasonable particularity before causation can be assessed on the subjective test from [name withheld] v [name withheld]. A trial judge who accepts a plaintiff's evidence-in-chief as to what they would have done if warned must give persuasive reasons for doing so where cogent cross-examination has undercut that evidence. Where a trial miscarries due to a mistake of fact common to the parties and the judge, a new trial on limited issues may be ordered and a party may be released from counsel's concession.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 11 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.