Why “Known Risks” Shouldn’t Excuse Medical Mistakes

When something goes wrong during a medical procedure, doctors and hospitals often defend themselves by saying, “Well, that was a known risk of the procedure.” But is that a fair defense? Should a doctor be off the hook just because a bad outcome was possible—even if it was avoidable? Let’s break down why Virginia law says “no,” and why that matters for all of us.

Imagine you’re crossing the street and a driver runs a red light, hitting you. In court, the driver’s lawyer says, “Pedestrian accidents are a known risk of city intersections.” That’s true in a general sense—accidents do happen. But it doesn’t answer the real question: Did this driver break the rules and cause harm?

The same logic applies in medical malpractice cases. Just because a complication is a “known risk” doesn’t mean the doctor did everything right. The law wants to know: Did the doctor follow the rules and provide proper care in this specific case?

Why “Known Risk” Isn’t Evidence

Virginia courts have made it clear: you can’t use “known risk” as a blanket excuse unless the patient is claiming they weren’t properly warned about the risks (that’s called an “informed consent” claim). If the case isn’t about informed consent, then talking about risks the patient was told about is irrelevant.

Even more, just saying “this sometimes happens” or “other patients have had this problem” doesn’t prove the doctor acted responsibly. Statistics and generalizations don’t answer the key question: Was this injury caused by negligence, or was it truly unavoidable despite proper care?

Let’s use another example. If a restaurant serves you undercooked chicken and you get food poisoning, the chef can’t just say, “Food poisoning is a known risk of eating chicken.” That doesn’t tell us if the chef cooked your meal safely. The real question is: Did the chef follow food safety rules?

The Danger of “Known Risk” Language

When juries hear “known risk,” they might subconsciously think, “Well, maybe it’s not the doctor’s fault.” But that’s not how the law works. The law requires a careful look at what actually happened—not just what could happen in theory.

Allowing doctors to hide behind “known risk” language is like letting drivers off the hook for running red lights just because accidents sometimes happen at intersections. It’s a distraction from the real issue: Did the person in question act responsibly?

What the Law Actually Allows

Doctors and their experts are absolutely allowed to explain why they think the care provided was appropriate. They can walk the jury through their decisions and defend their actions. What they can’t do is use vague labels like “known complication” to avoid a real analysis of what happened.

If an expert wants to talk about anatomy—like where a blood vessel is located during a procedure—that’s fair game. That’s specific, factual information. But simply saying, “This injury is a known risk,” without explaining how it happened or whether it could have been avoided, isn’t helpful or fair.

The Bottom Line

When someone is hurt during a medical procedure, the law doesn’t care about what sometimes happens to other people, in other hospitals, with other doctors. The only thing that matters is whether the doctor in this case followed the standard of care.

So next time you hear “known risk” as a defense, remember: It’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It’s just a label—and labels don’t answer the real question of responsibility.