The plaintiff, in this respect, testified that she would not, if she had known there may be an impact on her ability to breathe, have undergone any surgery which may have exposed her to risk in this respect. The test is not whether the plaintiff would have undergone the surgery; the test is whether a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would have, on a balance of probabilities, opted against the surgery. See Reibl v. Hughes at page 928.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.