Chappel v Hart

In *Chappel v Hart*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute between a patient, Mr. Chappel, and his surgeon, Dr. Hart. Mr. Chappel alleged that Dr. Hart was negligent in performing a surgical procedure, specifically the insertion of a nasogastric tube, which resulted in perforation of his oesophagus. The core of the dispute concerned whether Dr. Hart owed Mr. Chappel a duty of care in relation to the specific risk of perforation of the oesophagus during the insertion of the tube, and if so, whether that duty had been breached.

The High Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the surgeon owed a duty of care to the patient to warn of the risk of perforation of the oesophagus during the insertion of a nasogastric tube. Secondly, if such a duty of care existed, whether the surgeon had breached that duty by failing to adequately warn the patient of the material risk of perforation.

The Court's reasoning focused on the principles of negligence and the scope of a doctor's duty to warn patients of material risks associated with medical procedures. The majority held that a surgeon does owe a duty of care to warn a patient of a material risk of injury, even if that risk is rare, provided that a reasonable patient in the patient's position would attach significance to the risk. The Court found that the risk of oesophageal perforation, while not common, was a serious one, and therefore a reasonable patient would want to be informed of it. The failure to warn of this material risk constituted a breach of the duty of care.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that Dr. Hart had breached his duty of care to Mr. Chappel by failing to warn him of the material risk of oesophageal perforation. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for assessment of damages.