Can a plaintiff recover for medical malpractice from a doctor who failed to warn her of the risks of an operation?

Plaintiff argues that the testimony was collateral to the issues in the trial court and thus properly rejected. That is not the case. In order for plaintiff to recover for medical malpractice due to defendant's failure to warn of risks there must be a casual relationship between the failure to perform and the injury. (Cobbs v. Grant, supra, 8 Cal.3d at p. 245, 104 Cal.Rptr. 505, 502 P.2d 1.) That relationship must be established by reference to whether plaintiff would have consented to the operation if properly warned and whether a prudent person in plaintiff's position would have done so. (Ibid.) Evidence that plaintiff was aware of the risks despite defendant's failure to inform her relates directly to the question of whether she would have [106 Cal.App.3d 352] undergone the operation despite a warning from defendant. As such the evidence was not collateral but was directly relevant to an issue in the case. ⁴