What is the test for a plaintiff to prove that he would not have gone ahead with an epidural procedure if he had been warned of the risks and risks?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Severn v Bokelman, 2018 BCSC 1100 (CanLII):
The applicants note that onus is on the plaintiff to prove that a reasonable person in his position would not have proceeded with the epidural had they been advised of the risks. This requires the court to consider what the reasonable patient in the circumstances of the plaintiff would have done in the same situation. The trier of fact must take into consideration any particular concerns of the patient and any special considerations affecting the particular patient in determining whether the patient would have refused treatment if given all the information about possible risks: see Reible v. Hughes, 1980 CanLII 23 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880 [Reible], at para. 25.
"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.
Other Questions
When there is no risk of danger under section 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (3) of the Criminal Code, does a plaintiff have to prove that he was aware of the risk to himself? (British Columbia, Canada)
What must a plaintiff have to prove on a balance of probabilities that their injuries would not have occurred “but for” the accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether a plaintiff’s claim of causation in a medical malpractice case is based on the risk factors associated with increased risk of adverse effects? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the effect of a failure to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure and Procedure on a plaintiff's medical report? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does the BCSC need to approve the proposed amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure and Procedure to the rules of procedure? (British Columbia, Canada)
What factors will be considered by the courts when determining whether a plaintiff would be entitled to a general rule of common law common law costs under s. 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the onus of a plaintiff to prove that she would have acquired employment advantages if she had not been a primary carer? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether a reasonable person in a plaintiff's position would have undergone the same surgery if properly informed of the risks? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the impact of Rule 37B of the BC Rules of Civil Procedure and Procedure on Rule 37 B of the Rules of Procedure? (British Columbia, Canada)
What must a plaintiff prove to establish negligence? (British Columbia, Canada)
