Supreme Court Motion For Judgment In Patient’s Claim

Press, Volume C, Issue 29474, 28 March 1961, Page 9

Supreme Court Motion For Judgment In Patient’s Claim

• The hearing of a motion to . upset the verdict of a jury , which awarded £3771 Is 6d > damages to Robin Tex ClutJ terbuck, now aged 24. a i labourer, against the North t Canterbury Hospital Board J on grounds that Clutte.-buck , had to have his right hand ■> and part of the forearm amputated because of negligence , of the board's servants, was begun before Mr Justice Richmond in the Supreme Court yesterday. The jury awarded the damages to Clutterbuck after a six-day hearing in August. 1960, finding that the board, through its servants, was negligent in failing to admit Clutterbuck as an in-patient to the Christchurch Hospital about 6.30 a.m. on March 8, 1956, the day after he had crushed his hand in a printing press. The jury also found the board negligent through its servants in failing to administer an antibiotic to Clutterbuck about 6.30 am. on March 8. 1956, and failing to refer Clutterbuck’s condition to a specialist at the same time and date or within a reasonable time thereafter. The jury, in its verdict, . found in favour of the hospital board on the six other issues put to it. Clutterbuck, aged 19 at the time of the accident, sued through his father, and claimed £B5OO general and £271 Is 6d spe- • cial damages. The jury awarded him £3500 general damages and the special damages claimed. At yesterday's hearing, Mr R. A. Young, with him Mr P. G S. Penlington. appeared for the North Canterbury Hospital Board in support of the motion to unset judgment. Mr B. McClelland, with him Mr A. D. Holland, appeared for Clutterbuck in opposition to the motion. "Non-suit” Opening his submissions. Mr Young said that the North Canterbury Hospital Board's motion was the only one before the Court After the hearing of the claim, judgment for the plaintiff. Clutterbuck, was not entered. The case was adjourned, under rule 2866 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for further consideration on the application of counsel for the defendant board. The motion, said Mr Young, was for judgment of non-suit, on grounds that there was no evidence of negligence to go before the jury and. alternatively, judgment for the defendant board on grounds that there was

no evidence to support the jury’s verdict that the amputation of the plaintiff’s right hand was caused by the negligence of the hospital staff. Counsel said that in the motion originally filed an application was made for a new trial but this was withdrawn, and the plaintiffs solicitors informed, on September 22. 1960 The three issues in which the jury had found the board negligent had involved the treatment of the plaintiff by a Dr. Cartwright, Mr Young said. He submitted that the plaintiffs visit to the ; hospital about 6.30 am. on March 8. 1956, must be viewed against the background of events on the previous day. Counsel said the plaintiff , had then been working for ; a small company making cardboard boxes. He was operating a printing' press which had a pressure of 25 tons when its jaws were fully i closed.

The plaintiff had caught his hand in the jaws of the press when it was threequarters of an inch from being fully closed and had his hand in the press for a maximum time of 30 seconds. He was taken to the Christchurch Hospital by truck on the afternoon of March 7, 1956. Gas Gangrene “The plaintiffs treatment from the afternoon of March 7 to March 15 when his hand was amputated was the subject matter of the case.” said Mr Young. “Gas gangrene developed in the plaintiffs hand and the right arm was amputated through the middle of the forearm.

“Counsel in his opening said that the gas gangrene and subsequent injuries were caused by the negligence of the board and its servants. “The board denied that gas gangrene developed as a result of any treatment undergone by the plaintiff.

“The fundamental issue between the plaintiff and the board, in my submission, was whether the gas gangrene was caused by any act or omission on the part of the boa-d or its servants. “It was common ground that amputatien followed the onslaught of gas gangrene But at the time rf the operation the surgeons in charge of the case were satisfied that the gas gangrene was under control The surgeons

were satisfied that the tissues of the injured hand were dead from the crushing it had received. “Vasculatory gangrene was present because of circulatory failure due to injury to the plaintiff's hand and wrist. “The board and plaintiff were on common ground that the plaintiff’s hand and wrist, fected with gas gangrene. But, by skilful diagnosis and treatment it was brought under control and, I submit, played little if any part in the loss of the plaintiff’s hand,” said Mr Young. “The plaintiff’s case, in essence, was that gas gangrene necessitated the amputation of the hand and that the board was in some way negligent in the early diagnosis and treatment of that condition,” Mr Young said. Cause of Gangrene Counsel quoted at length from the notes of evidence, taken before the jury in the hearing of the claim, in support of his main submissions that the development of gas gangrene was not caused by any act or omission by the hospital staff and that gas gangrene was not the cause of the plaintiff losing his hand. In discussing the standard

■ of care that the board. ■ through its servants, had to : provide for patients, Mr Young quoted from the evid- . ence passages in support of his submission that Dr. Cart- , wright had not fallen below the standard of care expecj ted in his treatment of the ■ plaintiff. Causation : Mr Young submitted there was no evidence from which the -jury could infer negli- • gence. Assuming that Dr. ‘ Cartwright was negligent, ' the plaintiff still had to prove that any one alone, or all i of the three omissions cumulatively, caused the amputation of the plaintiff’s hand : or led to the conditions which caused the amputation ■ to be necessary. Mr Young quoted legal ■ authority for a judge entering judgment for the defendant. notwithstanding a jury’s verdict for the plain- ; tiff, if the judge felt the evidence compelled him to do so. i “It follows that your Hon- • our has to decide whether, ■ upon the whole of the evidi ence, the affirmative finding ! of the jury was warranted in i the sense of being one which could reasonably be arrived at by a conscientious jury,”

Mr Young submitted. At the conclusion of Mi Young’s submissions, hi: Honour adjourned the Cour until today when submission: that the jury’s verdict should stand and judgment be entered for Clutterbuck will b< put.