How have the courts interpreted answers to the jury in a medical malpractice case?

In his charge to the jury the learned trial judge cautioned the jury to make their answers to the questions clear, explicit and concise but not so concise as to cloud or render difficult the interpretation of the meaning of the language used and their conclusions. Despite this wholesome direction by the learned trial judge I find it difficult to interpret the answers given and likewise the reasons therefor. However, it is the duty of the court to interpret the said answers and to decide whether or not the said answers come within the pleadings, the evidence at the trial and the judge’s charge to the jury. Vide Hamar v. C.N.R. 1938 CanLII 161 (SK CA), [1938] 2 WWR 161. Learned counsel for the plaintiff, in his opening address to the jury concluded with a statement in which he referred to the plaintiff’s “real complaint” and which had the effect of narrowing the issue and focusing the attention of the jury upon that complaint. At the hearing of this appeal learned counsel for the respondent read this excerpt which I now quote and emphasized it as the epitome of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant: “The plaintiff’s claim is the company either knew or should have known it was necessary to wear goggles for this and should have made it a rule and should have made it known the danger to the plaintiff, and should have required him to wear goggles, and to have supplied goggles. A plea is not essential that he didn’t have goggles because his evidence is that at that time he didn’t realize the danger of not having goggles, even if he had them he would not have used them. So the real complaint is not that he hadn’t goggles, but that he didn’t know of any rule which was brought up to him, and he didn’t realize the danger of not wearing goggles. “It is not so much that they didn’t have new goggles but that they didn’t teach him the need for goggles and he didn’t realize it, and so that is the essential part of the case;.”

The findings of the jury negative all other allegations of negligence (Andreas v. C.P.R. 1905 CanLII 26 (SCC), [1905] 37 SCR 1) and in my opinion the only allegations of negligence conceivable within the findings of the jury are as follows: “In the alternative if there was a rule of the defendant requiring the plaintiff to wear goggles for such hammering, the said rule was never enforced or made known to the plaintiff. “In failing to enforce or make known to the plaintiff any rule requiring the use of goggles for all hammering.”