The Appellant claimed that the 2nd Respondent failed to warn him of the risk of popliteal artery injury and negligently caused the injury. The Court of Appeal, however, held that the mere warning of the risk of “bleeding” did not encompass the specific risk of popliteal artery injury. The Court emphasised that the duty to advise on surgical risk is specific in nature. Accordingly, the 2nd Respondent breached his duty to advise, thereby depriving the Appellant of the opportunity to make an informed decision. This decision underscores that a doctor’s duty to advise on surgical risk is specific.