Chappel v Hart

In *Chappel v Hart*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute arising from a surgical procedure. The plaintiff, Ms. Hart, underwent surgery performed by the defendant, Dr. Chappel, to correct a prolapse. During the surgery, a surgical instrument, a needle, was inadvertently left inside Ms. Hart's body. Ms. Hart subsequently experienced pain and discomfort, leading to further medical treatment and the eventual discovery of the retained needle. Ms. Hart sued Dr. Chappel for damages for negligence.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Dr. Chappel owed a duty of care to Ms. Hart in relation to the risk of a surgical instrument being retained within her body following the procedure. The court also had to determine whether, if such a duty of care existed, Dr. Chappel had breached that duty, and if so, whether that breach caused Ms. Hart the loss and damage she claimed.

The Court of Appeal, applying the principles established in *Donoghue v Stevenson* and subsequent Australian case law on the duty of care in medical negligence, found that a surgeon does owe a duty of care to their patient to take reasonable precautions to avoid foreseeable risks of harm during surgery. The court held that the risk of a surgical instrument being retained within a patient's body was a foreseeable risk. The court further found that Dr. Chappel had breached this duty of care by failing to ensure that all surgical instruments were accounted for before the completion of the surgery. This breach was found to be causative of Ms. Hart's subsequent pain, suffering, and the need for further medical intervention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Dr. Chappel's appeal and upheld the trial judge's finding of liability. Ms. Hart was awarded damages for the injuries and losses she sustained as a result of the retained surgical needle.