Can a doctor be held responsible for an accident?

And in Cardin v. Montreal (City) (1961), 1961 CanLII 77 (SCC), 29 D.L.R. (2d) 492 at 494 (S.C.C.), Taschereau J. noted: Certainly, doctors should not be held responsible for unforeseeable accidents which may occur in the normal course of the exercise of their profession. Cases necessarily occur in which, in spite of exercising the greatest caution, accidents supervene and for which nobody can be held responsible. The doctor is not a guarantor of the operation which he performs or the attention he gives. If he displays normal knowledge, if he gives the medical care which a competent doctor would give under identical conditions, if he prepares his patient before operation according to the rules of the art, it is difficult to sue him in damages, if by chance an accident occurs. Perfection is a standard required by law no more for a doctor than for other professional men, lawyers, engineers, architects, etc. Accidents, imponderables, what is foreseeable and what is not, must necessarily be taken into account.

And in Wilson v. Swanson (1956), 1956 CanLII 1 (SCC), 5 D.L.R. (2d) 113 at 120, (S.C.C.), Rand J. opined: An error of judgment has long been distinguished from an act of unskilfulness or carelessness or due to lack of knowledge. Although universally accepted procedures must be observed, they furnish little or no assistance in resolving such a predicament as faced the surgeon here. In such a situation a decision must be made without delay based on limited known and unknown factors; and the honest and intelligent exercise of judgement has long been recognized as satisfying the professional obligation.