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
Australia-wide · No win, no fee · Free case evaluation — speak to us today
Case law library
Rogers v Whitaker is the landmark 1992 High Court decision that changed how Australian doctors must communicate with patients. It established the duty to warn of material risks and remains one of the most cited authorities in medical negligence claims today.Plain-English guides for every stage of a professional negligence claim — from understanding your rights to resolving your matter.
Case summary
| Case name | Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 |
| Year decided | 1992 |
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Parties | Rogers (defendant ophthalmologist) v Whitaker (plaintiff patient) |
| Decision in brief | The High Court held that doctors must warn patients of any risk a reasonable person in their position would consider significant, including risks the patient has specifically raised. The standard is set by the patient’s perspective — not by what the medical profession customarily discloses. |
Maree Whitaker had been almost completely blind in her right eye since childhood, following an injury. In 1984, she consulted Dr Christopher Rogers, an experienced ophthalmologist in Sydney, about the possibility of surgery to that eye.
Whitaker asked Rogers many questions about the procedure and its potential outcomes. She was particularly concerned about her good eye — her left eye — which had given her near-normal vision her whole adult life. Rogers recommended surgery and performed the operation. The procedure itself was carried out competently.
What followed was devastating. Whitaker developed a rare condition called sympathetic ophthalmia — where an injury or surgery to one eye triggers an inflammatory response in the other. She lost almost all vision in her previously good left eye.
The risk of sympathetic ophthalmia occurring after this type of surgery was extremely small — roughly 1 in 14,000. Rogers had not warned Whitaker of it. The question before the courts was whether he should have.
The High Court found in favour of Whitaker. In a majority decision, the Court held that Rogers had breached his duty of care by failing to warn her of the risk of sympathetic ophthalmia.
The key issue was whose standard should apply when deciding what information a doctor must disclose. Rogers argued the medical profession itself should set that standard — that if it was accepted medical practice not to warn of such a rare risk, a doctor who followed that practice could not be found negligent. The High Court rejected that approach.
The Court held that while the medical profession’s standards are relevant to questions about clinical treatment, they do not govern the question of what information a patient must be given. That question, the Court said, is one for the law — not the profession.
The standard the Court adopted was this: a doctor must warn of a risk that is material — meaning a risk “a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to.” Critically, this also includes any specific concern the patient themselves has raised. Because Whitaker had made her anxiety about her good eye very clear, the risk — however small — was plainly material to her.
The duty to warn — in plain English
A doctor cannot decide what a patient needs to know based on what other doctors typically tell patients. The question is what this particular patient — given their individual circumstances, concerns, and questions — needed to know to make a genuinely informed choice.
Rogers v Whitaker established that patients have a right to make informed decisions about their own medical treatment — and that doctors bear the legal responsibility to give them the information needed to exercise that right.
Before this decision, Australian courts had generally followed the English approach in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, which allowed the medical profession to set its own standard for disclosure. Rogers v Whitaker broke from that position entirely.
The principle that emerged is often called the duty to warn or informed consent doctrine. It means a doctor must warn of any risk that is material — meaning a risk a reasonable person in the patient’s position would want to know about. This includes risks the patient themselves has specifically raised, regardless of how small the statistical probability.
This principle sits alongside the Civil Liability Acts in each Australian state. In NSW, section 5P of the Civil Liability Act 2002 addresses the standard of care for professionals. The duty to warn established in Rogers v Whitaker has been preserved and reinforced by subsequent case law, and remains one of the most frequently cited principles in Australian medical negligence proceedings.
It also reflects a broader value in Australian negligence law — that professionals who hold specialised knowledge and occupy a position of trust owe their clients and patients a genuine obligation of candour, not just competent technical execution.
More than three decades on, Rogers v Whitaker is still regularly cited in Australian courts. Its influence extends well beyond the specific facts of Whitaker’s case.
The duty to warn is most directly relevant to medical negligence claims — particularly those involving surgical procedures, prescribed treatments, or clinical decisions where risks were not properly explained. If a patient consented to a procedure without being told of a risk that materialised, and a reasonable person in their position would have wanted to know about it, Rogers v Whitaker is likely to be relevant to their claim.
The principle has also influenced how courts think about the disclosure obligations of other professionals. Solicitors, financial advisers, and accountants all operate in relationships where clients depend on them for information they cannot easily access elsewhere. While Rogers v Whitaker concerned a doctor, its core reasoning — that a professional cannot simply defer to what their peers typically do — has had a broader effect on how duty of care is assessed across professions.
Two subsequent cases refined the boundaries of the principle. In Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232, the High Court examined whether a failure to warn actually caused the patient’s loss — a distinct question from whether the duty was breached. In Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434, the Court considered how a patient’s own pre-existing knowledge affects the scope of the duty.
If you believe a medical professional failed to warn you of a risk that eventuated, or that a decision you made about your treatment was based on incomplete information, it is worth speaking with a specialist legal team about whether that failure gives rise to a claim.
See also
Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232
Examined causation in the context of the duty to warn. The High Court considered whether Mrs Hart would have avoided the surgery — and the harm — had she been properly warned of the risk, establishing an important causation framework alongside Rogers v Whitaker.
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434
Considered the limits of the duty to warn where the patient already had access to relevant information. The decision clarified how a patient’s own pre-existing knowledge shapes the scope of the doctor’s disclosure obligation.
Naxakis v Western General Hospital (1999) 197 CLR 269
Addressed the standard of care in diagnosis and treatment decisions, sitting alongside Rogers v Whitaker as a key authority on what Australian courts expect of medical practitioners in the conduct of their clinical work.
Common questions
The High Court held that doctors must warn patients of any risk that a reasonable person in their position would consider significant — including risks the patient has specifically asked about. The decision rejected the idea that medical practice itself sets the standard for disclosure, placing the focus firmly on the individual patient’s perspective and need for information.
Rogers v Whitaker established the legal foundation for informed consent claims in Australia. If a doctor failed to warn you of a risk that then eventuated — and you would not have proceeded with the treatment had you known — the case may support a claim for medical negligence. Whether it applies to your specific situation depends on the facts, including what you were told, what questions you asked, and what you would have done differently.
Yes. While the Civil Liability Acts across Australian states have modified some aspects of negligence law, the duty to warn principle established in Rogers v Whitaker remains good law. It has been applied and affirmed in numerous subsequent decisions, including Chappel v Hart and Rosenberg v Percival. Courts continue to cite it regularly in medical negligence proceedings.
Possibly. If a risk was not disclosed to you, that risk materialised, and you would have made a different decision had you known about it, Rogers v Whitaker may be relevant to your claim. The strength of that claim depends on factors including how significant the risk was, whether you raised any specific concerns before consenting, and what a reasonable person in your position would have wanted to know. A specialist legal assessment is the most reliable way to understand where you stand.
Not sure where you stand?
If you are reading about Rogers v Whitaker because something went wrong with your own medical care, you are probably trying to work out whether what happened to you could form the basis of a claim. A free case evaluation carries no obligation. You tell us what happened, we give you a straight assessment. If there is a claim worth pursuing, we will tell you. If there is not, we will tell you that too.
We respond within 1 business day · No obligation · Completely confidential
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