The parties presented experienced orthopaedic surgeons as witnesses. The plaintiff’s expert argued that the injury was highly unusual and likely resulted from excessive force or prolonged positioning. On the other hand, the defence maintained that the surgery adhered to established protocols and that the injury could have been due to factors unrelated to negligence, such as the plaintiff's anatomy or prior injuries.
The court found the defence’s alternate explanations unconvincing, noting that the plaintiff was deemed a suitable candidate for surgery with no pre-existing vulnerabilities identified. The court also highlighted inconsistencies in the surgeon’s account and a lack of documentation regarding the duration of arm positioning during the procedure.
The Superior Court emphasized that while surgeons must exercise professional judgment, errors in judgment that lead to preventable injuries may constitute negligence. The court rejected the defence’s argument that the injury resulted from a rare but unavoidable complication, concluding that a breach of the standard of care occurred.
Ultimately, the court held the surgeon liable for the plaintiff’s injury and awarded damages, which had been agreed upon by both parties before the ruling.