Zimmer and Zimmer v. Ringrose, (1981) 28 A.R. 69 (CA)

• Judge: McDermid, Prowse and Harradence, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: February 18, 1981
• Citations: (1981), 28 A.R. 69 (CA)

Zimmer v. Ringrose (1981), 28 A.R. 69 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Zimmer and Zimmer v. Ringrose

(12439)

Indexed As: Zimmer and Zimmer v. Ringrose

Alberta Court of Appeal

McDermid, Prowse and Harradence, JJ.A.

February 18, 1981.

Summary:

This case arose out of a claim for damages by a woman and her husband against a gynaecologist. The woman consulted the doctor for sterilization. The doctor used an experimental procedure, but did not tell her that the procedure involved a significant risk of failure. After the procedure the woman became pregnant, but because of poor clinical procedure by the doctor, she was not informed of her pregnancy until the fourth month. The doctor referred her to a doctor in the State of Washington for an abortion. The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, in a judgment reported 13 A.R. 181, allowed the woman's action on the ground that, because her consent was not informed, the doctor committed a trespass to her person. Further, the Trial Division held that the doctor was negligent in failing to provide a professional standard of after-care. The Trial Division awarded $1.00 general damages for trespass and $5,000.00 general damages for negligent after-care. The doctor appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and held that, although the doctor was negligent in failing to adequately inform the woman about the procedure, no causal connection between the negligence and damage was proved, where full disclosure would not have caused the woman to choose another procedure. The award of damages for negligent after- care was affirmed.

Damages - Topic 1259

Losses by third parties - Loss of consortium - Partial loss of society and comfort of spouse - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that a partial loss of the comfort and society of a spouse was sufficient to support an action for loss of consortium, but dismissed a husband's action for damages, because the loss did not flow from the defendant's negligence - See paragraphs 31 to 34.

Medicine - Topic 3048

Relation with patient - Consent to treatment - Duty of treating doctor to inform patient - The Alberta Court of Appeal held a physician negligent in failing to give a patient a fair and reasonable explanation of proposed treatment, the probable effect and any special or unusual risks - See paragraphs 9 to 20.

Medicine - Topic 3048

Relation with patient - Consent to treatment - Duty of treating doctor to inform patient - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the proper remedy for the failure of a doctor to inform a patient about the risks of treatment was an action in negligence and not battery - See paragraphs 9 to 11.

Medicine - Topic 3050

Relation of doctor with patient - Consent to treatment - Negligence - Causation - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that, although a physician was negligent in not adequately informing a patient about the risks of treatment, his negligence did not cause damage, where the patient would not have declined to undergo the treatment, if she had been adequately informed - The Court stated that an objective standard rather than a subjective standard should be used to determine whether she would have declined the treatment, if adequately informed - See paragraphs 21 to 29.

Medicine - Topic 4243

Liability of practitioners - Negligence - Failure to provide care to patient - After an experimental sterilization procedure a physician failed to follow his patient's progress and only learned she was pregnant again after four months pregnancy - Further, the physician needlessly subjected the patient to a traumatic abortion procedure - The Alberta Court of Appeal held the physician liable for damages for negligent aftercare - See paragraphs 29 to 30.

Medicine - Topic 4248

Liability of practitioners - Negligence - Failure to inform patient of uncertainties of treatment - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that a physician was negligent in failing to inform a woman of the probability of success and the risks of a new and not generally accepted sterilization procedure - See paragraphs 9 to 20.

Torts - Topic 4844

Interference with domestic relations - Husband and wife - Loss of consortium - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that a partial loss of the comfort and society of a spouse was sufficient to support an action for loss of consortium - See paragraphs 31 to 34.

Cases Noticed:

Reibl v. Hughes (1980), 33 N.R. 361, appld. [para. 9].

Trogun v. Fruchtman (1973), 207 N.W. (2d) 297, refd to. [para. 10].

Downer v. Veilleux (1974), 322 A.(2d) 82, refd to. [para. 10].

Lepp v. Hopp (1980), 32 N.R. 145, appld. [para. 11].

Halushka v. University of Saskatchewan (1965), 52 W.W.R.(N.S.) 608, dist. [para. 16].

Best v. Samuel Fox and Co. Ltd., [1952] A.C. 716, appld. [para. 31].

Woelk v. Halvorson (1980), 32 N.R. 232, appld. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Domestic Relations Act, R.S.A. 1973, c. 61, sect. 35 [para. 31].

Counsel:

G.S.D. Wright, for the respondent;

L.W. Drewry, for the appellant.

This case was heard before McDERMID, PROWSE and HARRADENCE, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On February 18, 1981, PROWSE, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal: