What is the current state of the law on the "small risk" of damage to internal organs caused by a laparoscopic procedure?

This was the conclusion reached by Barrow J. in Brock v. Anderson, 2003 BCSC 1359, 20 C.C.L.T. (3d) 70, where the physician told the plaintiff who was to have her gall bladder removed that the risk of damage to internal organs was “small”. Serious damage to two major blood vessels did in fact occur, resulting in a life threatening situation. Mr. Justice Barrow stated: 31 I find that the risk of damage to the major vessels underling the umbilicus is a material risk, particularly when the Veress needle method of laparoscopic insertion is used. I find that to describe the risk as "small", as was done here, may accurately describe the likelihood of its occurrence, but does not adequately convey the magnitude of the consequences of its occurrence. This is particularly so when the description is used in contradistinction to the description of the potentially fatal consequences that may flow from the administration of a general anaesthetic.