“Doctor liable for failure to warn despite uncertain causation link”
Ms Chester underwent spinal surgery performed by Mr Afshar without being warned of a small risk of serious complications. The surgery was performed competently but the risk materialized, leaving Chester with significant disability. Chester could not prove she would never have had the operation if warned, only that she would not have had it at that particular time.
Whether a doctor can be held liable for failing to warn of surgical risks when the patient cannot prove they would have avoided the surgery altogether if properly informed.
The House of Lords held (3:2) that Mr Afshar was liable. A doctor's duty to warn patients of material risks is breached when adequate information is not provided, and causation can be established even without proving the patient would have declined surgery entirely.
This landmark decision strengthened patients' rights to informed consent and established that breach of duty to warn can lead to liability even with modified causation requirements. It significantly impacted medical negligence law by prioritizing patient autonomy over strict causation.
You're reading the free summary of Chester v Afshar. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41, [2005] 1 AC 134
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.