› Duty of care — scope and content — hospital provider
Torts
› Negligence
› Breach of duty — standard of care — reasonable foreseeability of risk
Torts
› Negligence
› Causation — material contribution — pre-existing condition
Quick Take
1A hospital's duty to ensure safe post-procedure mobilisation is assessed against the risks that were known or reasonably foreseeable at the time; where an underlying condition (here, avascular necrosis) was undiagnosed and undiagnosable on the information available, the specific risk of injury from a minor stumble was not reasonably foreseeable and the precautions actually taken were a reasonable response to the known risks.
2Where a patient declines offered assistance (wheelchair, medical review) and assures staff she is well, and the clinical presentation is consistent with expected post-procedure effects, the treating staff are not required to override the patient's expressed wishes and insist on further assessment absent objective indicators of serious injury.
3On the facts, the court preferred the expert opinion that pre-existing avascular necrosis was the underlying cause of the plaintiff's hip deterioration, with the acute subchondral fracture sustained post-procedure representing an aggravation of that condition rather than an independent cause — but this finding on causation was obiter given the absence of breach.
