McArdle Estate v. Cox et al.,

• Judge: Clark,McClung,Picard
• Neutral Citation: 2003 ABCA 106
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Date: 28 October 2002
• Citation: (2003), 327 A.R. 129 (CA),2003 ABCA 106,[2003] 6 WWR 264,13 Alta LR (4th) 19,327 AR 129,17 CCLT (3d) 137,[2003] CarswellAlta 435,[2003] AJ No 389 (QL),296 WAC 129,327 A.R. 129,(2003), 327 AR 129 (CA),296 W.A.C. 129,[2003] A.J. No 389 (QL)

McArdle Estate v. Cox (2003), 327 A.R. 129 (CA);

    296 W.A.C. 129

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. AP.093

Sandy McArdle, Administrator of the Estate of Patricia McArdle and Sandy McArdle (appellants/plaintiffs) v. Samuel Cox (respondent/defendant) and Royal Alexandra Hospital, Capital Health Authority

(defendants/not a party in the appeal)

(0103-0179-AC; 2003 ABCA 106)

Indexed As: McArdle Estate v. Cox et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

McClung and Picard, JJ.A., and Clark, J.(ad hoc)

April 3, 2003.

Summary:

A surgeon reversed a stomach stapling procedure on a patient. The patient died two weeks later. The patient's estate and her husband sued the surgeon in negligence.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at [2001] A.R. Uned. 111, dismissed the action. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Medicine - Topic 4241.2

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Causation - The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action, asserting that the trial judge erred in establishing the standard of care without first determining causation - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The suggested modification of the negligence analysis for medical negligence cases resulted from a misunderstanding of the role of risk - The causation analysis had two aspects (1) the defendant was the cause in fact of the injury, i.e., but for the defendant's substandard actions the injury would not have occurred; and (2) the injury was foreseeable - It would be a critical fault to place the causation analysis before the standard of care analysis - However, judges should characterize the standard of care and apply it within the context of the injury and the forces relevant to its occurrence - The degree of foreseeable risk was an essential determinant to that characterization - As the degree of risk increased, so did the standard of care - The trial judge did not err in characterizing or applying the standard of care.

Medicine - Topic 4242

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Standard of care - [See Medicine - Topic 4241.2 ].

Torts - Topic 35

Negligence - Standard of care - Particular persons and relationships - Medical doctors and medical personnel - [See Medicine - Topic 4241.2 ].

Cases Noticed:

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al. (2002), 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 211 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Grass v. Women's College Hospital et al. (2001), 144 O.A.C. 298; 200 D.L.R.(4th) 242 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2002), 293 N.R. 194; 166 O.A.C. 199 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Meringolo v. Oshawa General Hospital (1991), 46 O.A.C. 260 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1991), 136 N.R. 319; 50 O.A.C. 159 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Liuni et al. v. Peters et al. (2001), 151 O.A.C. 389 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2002), 300 N.R. 195; 169 O.A.C. 196 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Locke v. Smith et al. (2002), 159 O.A.C. 328; 11 C.C.L.T.(3d) 245 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; 110 N.R. 200; 107 N.B.R.(2d) 94; 267 A.P.R. 94, refd to. [para. 20].

Wilson v. Swanson, [1956] S.C.R. 804; 5 D.L.R.(2d) 113, refd to. [para. 20].

Roe v. Minister of Health; Woolley v. Minister of Health, [1954] 2 All E.R. 131 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Ryan v. Victoria (City) et al., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 201; 234 N.R. 201; 117 B.C.A.C. 103; 191 W.A.C. 103; 168 D.L.R.(4th) 513, refd to. [para. 20].

Ciarlariello et al. v. Schacter et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 119; 151 N.R. 133; 62 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 20].

MacCabe v. Board of Education of Westlock (Roman Catholic Separate) School District No. 110 et al. (2001), 293 A.R. 41; 257 W.A.C. 41 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Tetterington v. Wiens et al. (1995), 165 A.R. 6; 89 W.A.C. 6 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1995) 195 N.R. 400; 181 A.R. 80; 116 W.A.C 80 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Badger v. Surkan (1970), 16 D.L.R.(3d) 146 (Sask. Q.B.), affd. (1972), 32 D.L.R.(3d) 216 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railway Co. (1928), 162 N.E. 99; 248 N.Y. 339, refd to. [para. 27].

Neuzen v. Korn, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 674; 188 N.R. 161; 64 B.C.A.C. 241; 105 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 42].

ter Neuzen v. Korn - see Neuzen v. Korn.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Picard, E.I. and Robertson, G.A., Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada (3rd Ed. 1996), p. 197 [para. 27].

Salmond and Heuston, Law of Torts (19th Ed. 1987), generally [para. 20].

Counsel:

J.V. Miller and P. Kirman, for the appellants;

D.R. Cranston, Q.C., and C. Bailey, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 28, 2002, by McClung and Picard, JJ.A., and Clark, J.(ad hoc), of the Alberta Court of Appeal. Picard, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment of the court on April 3, 2003.