On what basis can the dental surgeon be found jointly responsible for the escape of blood into the lungs?

On the second question, the learned trial judge found the appellants jointly responsible for the escape of blood into the lungs. Here, two qualified professionals were working together. The evidence of the numerous medical and dental experts showed that the operation was a team matter. The anaesthetist had the over-all responsibility for the patient to keep the air tract open while the dental surgeon did the extractions. The anaesthetist was responsible for the placing of the throat-pack and maintenance of the air-way, while the dentist had charge of the suction device operated by the assistant. The dentist should report anything untoward to the anaesthetist. While the anaesthetist was in charge, the dentist had responsibilities as well. The blood from the extractions found its way to the lungs of the patient while the anaesthetist was monitoring the pulse, with the patient immediately in front of him, with the face and mouth in full view. The dentist, in removing the teeth, had a full view of the mouth area at very close range and was in immediate contact with the assistant, who operated the suction mechanism. They failed to prevent excessive blood finding its way to the lungs. The learned trial judge made a finding that a considerable amount of blood escaped under or around the mouth-pack into the gullet and lungs, and the failure of the operative team to recognize and correct this constituted negligence resulting in death. The trial judge so found and as there is evidence, properly admitted, to establish such a finding this court should not disturb it: Briau v. MacNeill, 1976 CanLII 184 (SCC), [1977] 2 S.C.R. 205, 9 N. & P.E.I.R. 346.

As to the award for damages, the appellants dispute the amount as being excessive. While the award is large, the loss is great, and the sum granted cannot be said to be inordinately large or unrealistic. No appellate court should substitute a figure of its own for that of the trial judge simply because it would have awarded a different figure had it tried the matter. It must be satisfied that a wrong principle of law was applied, or that the over-all amount is a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages: Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alta. Ltd., 1978 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1978] 1 W.W.R. 577 at 580, 3 C.C.L.T. 225, 83 D.L.R. (3d) 452, 19 N.R. 50.