A trial judge's acceptance of direct expert evidence regarding the position of a staple line in a medical negligence case will not be disturbed on appeal where the expert's observations were unequivocal, based on actual examination, contemporaneously recorded, and not contradicted by evidence suggesting the expert's method could have led to an incorrect finding. Evidence that an alternative examination method is superior does not constitute contrary evidence to the expert's actual observations. A Jones v Dunkel inference will not be drawn from a plaintiff's failure to undergo a further medical examination where the proposition was not put to the plaintiff at trial, the examination was not therapeutic, and the plaintiff had no need of further evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members.