Does a jury's verdict that the breach of standard of care caused the loss of the two toes of a plaintiff be quashed?

In our view, the jury’s verdict that the breach of standard of care caused the loss of the two toes is not “so plainly unreasonable and unjust” as to merit interference by this court. Although the evidence in support of this finding is not strong, causation need not be determined with scientific precision. It is a question of fact which can best be answered by common sense: Snell v. Farrell, 1990 CanLII 70 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311 at 328. The jury was entitled, on the evidence at trial, to conclude that the failure to allow for proper observation of the toes after the surgery substantially contributed to the gangrene and the resulting loss of the two toes.