The ratio decidendi for the decision in the Smith case was that, at the time of death, the original wound was still an operative and substantial cause. Furthermore, in Cheshire, the victim died due to a known, and perhaps foreseeable, complication in surgery. Although in this case the injuries were not the operative cause of death, medical intervention was not seen as an adequate defense for the defendant because it had to be "so independent of his acts, and in itself so powerful in causing death." . In both cases it is not enough that there was inadequate medical care. An exception, however, is found in Jordan, where medical treatment was sufficient as a defense. In this case, the victim had been given a drug to which she was allergic and there was evidence to suggest the hospital should have been aware of the allergy. The court concluded that to break the causal chain the medical treatment must be grossly negligent, or “palpably wrong” and that the original injury was virtually