Tort; Negligence; duty of care; breach of duty of care; relevance of defendant's specialist skills.
Facts: While still a child, Whitaker suffered an injury that left her blind in one eye. Nonetheless she led a normal life until, at the age of 40, she consulted Rogers, an eye surgeon. He advised her that an operation on her blind eye would improve its appearance and probably restore significant sight. He did not warn her of any risks associated with the operation. The operation was performed but failed to improve the sight in Whitaker's blind eye. The operation also caused her to develop a rare condition that eventually led to blindness in her other eye. This condition was rare and not always so catastrophic in effect.
Issue: Had the defendant, a specialist opthalmic surgeon, breached the duty of care that he owed his patient?
Decision: As a specialist opthalmic surgeon, the defendant's duty of care required him to warn his patient of the possible risks involved in treatment, which he had failed to do.
Reason: In considering the appropriate standard by which to judge the duties owed by a defendant with specialist skill, Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson, Toohey and McHugh JJ said (at [6]):
"The standard of reasonable care and skill required is that of the ordinary skilled person exercising and professing to have that special skill... in this case the skill of an ophthalmic surgeon specializing in corneal and anterior segment surgery..." .