CANADIAN ANAESTI-mTISTS will always record 1942 as a year to remember in the annals, of Canadian anaesthesia. During that year Grltfl~ths and Johnson reported their observations on the first use of curare in general anaesthesia. The introduction of curare has been cited by many, as the greatest advance in anaesthesia in the past twenty-five years. How many of us realize that in that same year there occurred, in the Province of Ontario, another significant event which was to have a momentous bearing on the practice of anaesthesia in Canada? The case of Hughston v. lost(1) in that year was the first time in any court in Canada that an anaesthetist had been sued alone for alleged malpraclace. From a legal point of view, anaesthesia came of age. Prior to 1942, the surgeon was considered to have full charge of the operating room, including the anaesthesia and the anaesthetTst. The surgeon was held responsible for any ill result from the anaesthetac, although the "~" physlcmn administering the anaesthetic could be held co-responsible. IrL the Hughston and Jost case referred to above, the anaesthetist alone was sued for alleged ill result following intravenous Pentothal anaesthesia. The surgeon appeared as a witness, but was not involved in the action. Anaesthesia had become a speciahty, and the anaesthetist a specialist. In Great Britain, the United States, and Canada, anaesthetists in recent years have been subjected to many threats, writs, court actions, judgments and settlements. The purpose of tbAs paper is to draw attentaon to obser~r that might be helpful in the prevention of such threats, writs and court actions. Let us remember that, as anaesthetists, we are physicians, and any physician may be sued. No one can prevent a patient from bringing action against us, justified or not. What precautions must we take? I shall stress only a few.