The High Court awarded €60,000 to a patient after finding that inadequate care and maintenance of a surgical instrument caused its jaw to break during an operation at Naas General Hospital.
Mr Justice Gilligan’s judgment, delivered on 3 February 2005, dismissed the patient’s claims against the consultant surgeon, the instrument’s Irish distributor and its German manufacturer. The dispute before the court concerned liability among the defendants; the damages had been agreed.
The patient attended the hospital on or about 28 February 2000 for a laparoscopic gallbladder removal. During the operation, a jaw broke off an allis grasper and remained in her abdomen. After attempts to retrieve it using keyhole surgery, the surgeon converted the procedure to open surgery. An X-ray was taken and the metal fragment was recovered from beneath the right side of her liver.
The judgment records that the defendants accepted the patient was entitled to succeed in her claim for personal injuries, loss and damage, and had agreed damages of €60,000. The surgeon was not pursued in his professional capacity, and the claim against him was agreed to be dismissed.
The health board argued that the instrument was defective because the metal had become embrittled. The manufacturer denied a manufacturing defect and argued that corrosion developed because the instrument was not adequately maintained. The distributor said it acted as the manufacturer’s Irish agent. The court rejected the allegation that the distributor had failed to provide cleaning instructions, finding that it probably supplied the relevant manuals and that the choice between tap and demineralised water did not determine the case.
The judge preferred evidence from a metal-failure expert who concluded that corrosion pitting had caused a progressive fracture. He found, on the balance of probabilities, that corrosion was present near the jaw fracture on the operation date and caused the break. He also found a failure in the health board’s care and maintenance of the forceps.
The court dismissed the patient’s claims against the surgeon, distributor and manufacturer, and entered judgment for €60,000 against the health board. The judgment states that a related notice of indemnity or contribution served by the health board and surgeon against the distributor was also dismissed.