Our goal is to help people in the best way possible. this is a basic principle in every case and cause for success. contact us today for a free consultation.
Practice Areas
Newsletter
Sign up to our newsletter
Case Law —Rogers v whitaker
Most people trust their doctor completely. You ask questions, you listen to the answers, and you make a decision based on what you’ve been told. What happens when the information you needed — to make a genuinely informed choice — was never given to you?
That’s the question at the heart of Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58; (1992) 175 CLR 479. It’s one of the most significant cases in Australian legal history, and it permanently changed what doctors — and other professionals — are required to tell their clients before proceeding.
| Case name | Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58 |
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Year | 1992 |
| Parties | Maree Whitaker (plaintiff) v Christopher Rogers (defendant) |
| Key principle | A doctor must disclose any risk that a reasonable patient — or this particular patient — would want to know, regardless of what other doctors routinely disclose |
| Outcome | Dr Rogers found liable; the English Bolam test rejected in Australia for questions of disclosure |
Maree Whitaker had been almost entirely blind in her right eye since she was nine years old, following an accident. She had lived that way for decades — functioning, adapting, with her left eye carrying all the weight.
In the early 1980s, she consulted Dr Christopher Rogers, an ophthalmologist, about surgery on her damaged right eye. The operation had two potential benefits: it might improve the eye’s appearance, and it might restore some useful vision. Ms Whitaker was curious and engaged — she asked Dr Rogers many questions before agreeing to proceed.
What she was never told was this: the surgery carried a small risk of triggering a condition called sympathetic ophthalmia. It is a rare but serious complication where trauma or surgery to one eye causes the immune system to attack the other. The risk was approximately one in 14,000. Small. But not zero.
The surgery went ahead. Ms Whitaker developed sympathetic ophthalmia in her left eye — her only functioning eye. She lost the sight she had relied on her entire adult life.
She sued Dr Rogers for negligence. The case eventually reached the High Court of Australia.
The central question wasn’t whether Dr Rogers had performed the surgery competently. He had. The issue was whether he should have warned Ms Whitaker of the sympathetic ophthalmia risk before she consented to the procedure.
Dr Rogers argued — as many doctors had argued before him — that he’d met the appropriate standard of care. He hadn’t warned her because it wasn’t standard practice to warn patients of such a low-probability risk. This argument relied on what was known as the Bolam test, an English legal principle holding that a doctor isn’t negligent if their conduct is consistent with a responsible body of medical opinion.
The High Court rejected it.
The court held that in Australia, the standard for disclosure isn’t set by what doctors typically do or what the profession considers acceptable. It’s set by what the patient needs to know.
Ms Whitaker had made clear, through her questions, that she was worried about her good eye. The state of her left eye was obviously significant to her. A one-in-14,000 risk of losing it was, in that context, a material risk — regardless of how small the probability appeared in statistical terms.
Dr Rogers was found liable. The Bolam test, for questions of disclosure and informed consent, was done in Australia.
What Rogers v Whitaker established is sometimes called the “patient-centred standard” for disclosure. The question is not what doctors usually say. It’s what this patient — or any reasonable patient in their position — would want to hear.
That shift matters more than it might initially appear. It means a professional cannot hide behind accepted industry practice when a client has clearly signalled something is important to them. It means the obligation to disclose is shaped by the client’s situation, not professional convention.
And while Rogers v Whitaker arose in a medical context, the principle has broader reach. Any professional with a duty to advise — a solicitor, a financial adviser, an engineer — carries an obligation to disclose information that is material to the person they are advising.
Since 2002, most Australian states have introduced Civil Liability Acts that codify aspects of the disclosure duty. These statutes operate alongside Rogers v Whitaker, not in place of it. The core principle — that disclosure must be patient-centred and responsive to the individual’s known concerns — remains intact.
If you weren’t warned of a risk before a procedure or professional service — and that risk materialised — Rogers v Whitaker is directly relevant to your situation.
To establish a failure-to-warn claim, you generally need to show:
That last element — causation — is where Rogers v Whitaker connects to a later case: Chappel v Hart [1998] HCA 55. Chappel v Hart dealt directly with the question of what would have happened if the warning had been given, and what the patient would have done. It’s the natural next step in understanding how duty-to-warn claims work end to end.
The limitation period for bringing a claim varies by state, but it generally runs from the point at which you became aware — or should reasonably have become aware — of the connection between the failure to warn and your harm. If you’re unsure where you stand, the time to find out is now, not later.
If you believe a professional failed to warn you of a material risk and you suffered harm as a result, time limits apply to your ability to make a claim. The period generally begins from the date you became aware — or should reasonably have become aware — of the connection between the failure to warn and your harm. These periods vary by state. Contact our team for a free assessment before time runs out.
A missed warning. A risk you weren’t told about. A decision you would have made differently. The harm that followed.
Many people believe that because the surgery was performed correctly, or the advice was technically sound, they have no claim. Rogers v Whitaker shows that isn’t always true. If a professional failed to tell you something you needed to know, and you’ve been harmed as a result, it’s worth getting a proper assessment of your situation.
Rogers v Whitaker established that in Australia, the duty to warn a patient of medical risks is assessed from the patient’s perspective — not the profession’s. A doctor must disclose any risk that a reasonable patient would want to know, or that this particular patient would want to know based on their known concerns. The High Court rejected the English Bolam test for questions of disclosure, making Australia’s standard one of the most patient-centred in the common law world.
Yes. The core principle remains good law in Australia. Since 2002, Civil Liability legislation in most states has codified aspects of the disclosure duty, but Rogers v Whitaker continues to inform how courts interpret those provisions. The patient-centred standard it established has not been displaced.
The duty to warn requires a doctor — or other professional — to disclose any risk that is material to the person they are advising. A risk is material if a reasonable person in the patient’s position would want to know about it, or if the practitioner is or should be aware that this specific patient would consider it significant. Materiality is not determined solely by statistical probability.
The Bolam test, developed in English law, held that a doctor wasn’t negligent if their conduct was consistent with a respectable body of medical opinion. Under that test, if most doctors wouldn’t have mentioned a particular risk, not mentioning it was defensible. Rogers v Whitaker rejected that approach for disclosure. In Australia, the standard is set by what the patient needs to know — not by what professionals customarily say.
You may be able to, depending on your circumstances. You would generally need to show that the risk was material to someone in your position, that you weren’t warned of it, and that had you been warned, you would have made a different decision — one that would have avoided the harm. These are fact-specific questions. A free case evaluation is the best way to get a clear picture of where you stand.
Our goal is to help people in the best way possible. this is a basic principle in every case and cause for success. contact us today for a free consultation.
Sign up to our newsletter