Barrett v. Emanuel Hospital
64 Or. App. 635, 669 P.2d 835, 67 A.L.R. 4th 535 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot be applied to infer negligence against multiple defendants when a plaintiff cannot identify which specific defendant or instrumentality was the probable cause of an injury, even in complex multi-defendant medical settings.
Facts:
- Mr. Barrett underwent knee surgery.
- During or after this surgery, Mr. Barrett allegedly suffered mental and nervous disorders.
- The underlying cause of these disorders could not be traced to a specific person or instrument.
- Two surgeons, an anesthesiologist, the hospital where the surgery was performed, and the professional corporation employing the surgeons were all involved in Mr. Barrett's surgery.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Mr. Barrett and his wife) brought an action in trial court against two surgeons, an anesthesiologist, Emanuel Hospital, and Portland Orthopedic Clinic to recover damages Mr. Barrett allegedly suffered after knee surgery.
- Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that all defendants, acting 'jointly and in concert,' had exclusive control of Mr. Barrett and all instrumentalities used during surgery, entitling them to proceed on the principle of res ipsa loquitur.
- At oral argument, plaintiffs' counsel abandoned other causes of action that alleged independent exclusive control by each defendant, electing to rely solely on the 'jointly and in concert' res ipsa loquitur theory.
- Defendants filed motions to strike all allegations predicated on res ipsa loquitur.
- The trial court granted defendants’ motions to strike these allegations, ruling they did not state a claim.
- Plaintiffs elected 'to stand on the complaint,' refusing to amend it after the res ipsa loquitur allegations were stricken.
- The trial court entered a judgment of dismissal against the plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's judgment of dismissal to the Court of Appeals of Oregon, with plaintiffs as appellants and defendants as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permit an inference of negligence against all medical and nursing personnel who participated in surgery when a patient under general anesthetic suffers an injury that cannot be traced to a specific person or instrument?
Opinions:
Majority - Richardson, P. J.
No, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not permit an inference of negligence against all medical personnel and entities involved in surgery when a plaintiff cannot prove which specific defendant or instrumentality was the probable cause of the injury. The court explicitly rejects the approach taken by Ybarra v. Spangard, which allowed such an inference against a group of defendants. Oregon case law, as established in cases like Pattle v. Wildish Construction Co., Watzig v. Tobin, Denny v. Warren, and Kaufman v. Fisher, consistently emphasizes that for res ipsa loquitur to apply, the plaintiff must show that the injury was 'probably caused by some negligent conduct of a particular defendant or defendants.' The logical basis for the 'exclusive control' element is that 'it must appear that the negligence of which the thing speaks is probably that of defendant and not of another.' The court finds that the rule advocated by plaintiffs, which would infer anything a plaintiff cannot prove about a defendant's conduct, is contrary to Oregon's established principles, which require proof of the probability that a particular defendant's conduct caused the harm. While acknowledging the policy concerns regarding recovery for patients with unexplained surgical injuries, the court states that res ipsa loquitur should not be stretched beyond the point where there are underlying facts, other than the mere result, from which the inference can reasonably be drawn, suggesting that alternative legal frameworks like strict liability or respondeat superior might be more appropriate ways to address such policy objectives.
Analysis:
This case is significant for definitively rejecting the expansion of res ipsa loquitur seen in Ybarra v. Spangard within Oregon jurisprudence. It reinforces a strict interpretation of the doctrine's 'exclusive control' element, demanding that plaintiffs demonstrate a probable causal link between the injury and a specific defendant's negligence, even in intricate multi-defendant medical settings. This decision places a considerable burden on plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases involving numerous actors, underscoring the necessity for specific evidence or direct allegations of negligence rather than relying on a generalized inference against an entire surgical team. It implicitly suggests that broader policy objectives concerning patient recovery for unexplained surgical injuries should be pursued through legislative action or other tort doctrines, rather than by extending the inferential scope of res ipsa loquitur beyond its established limits.
