The High Court has dismissed a musician’s negligence claim against a hospital nominee over eye surgery, finding that he had not proved the surgeon failed to warn him about the risk of double vision.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice White on 3 June 2005, concerned an operation on the plaintiff’s left eye at the Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital on 4 March 1994. The plaintiff, who had been born with a squint and had surgery to correct it as a child, sought the later operation to improve the eye’s appearance. He said he developed double vision afterwards and continued to experience it despite further surgery in January 1995.
The plaintiff alleged principally that the hospital’s staff or agents had failed to warn him of the risk. He also made a general allegation about how the operation was performed, which was not pursued to any great extent. The defendant denied negligence but accepted that there was a duty to inform him of the risk. The court said the plaintiff had to prove both that no warning was given and that he would not have proceeded if warned.
The plaintiff said no risks or complications were discussed at his consultations or on the day of surgery, and testified that he would not have gone ahead had he been warned. The surgeon, Dr Goggin, did not recall their meeting but described his usual practice: explaining common and uncommon complications, including double vision, and asking the patient to sign a consent form. The judge found that the records and the plaintiff’s question about the likely cosmetic result suggested the surgeon had followed that practice. The judge was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the warning had been omitted.
The judgment also records that the judge did not find the plaintiff credible and had reservations about the extent and effects of his symptoms. The judge said that, even if the warning issue had been decided in the plaintiff’s favour, the evidence did not persuade him that a warning would have changed the plaintiff’s decision, whose main concern was cosmetic improvement.
A consultant ophthalmic surgeon called for the plaintiff criticised the decision to operate, the failure to dissuade him, and the timing of any warning. The judge found that this evidence did not establish negligence by the defendant. The claim was dismissed. The judgment does not record any damages award.