Inouye v. Black
14 A.L.R. 3d 961, 238 Cal. App. 2d 31, 47 Cal. Rptr. 313 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in medical malpractice cases requires not merely that an accident was probably the result of someone's negligence, but that the evidence reasonably points to the defendant as the probable responsible party, even if the outcome is unexpected.
Facts:
- Plaintiff sustained a neck injury with torn ligaments, causing instability between his first and second cervical vertebrae, which made him vulnerable to paralysis.
- In April 1960, defendant, a neurosurgeon, performed surgery to stabilize the vertebrae by wiring them together with two pieces of No. 18 stainless steel wire.
- The wire, under constant tension, was expected to eventually break but was intended to allow the ligaments to heal without causing physical damage.
- Two years after the operation, X-rays unexpectedly revealed that the surgical wire had broken into relatively small fragments.
- Later X-rays showed one fragment, approximately an inch long, had migrated downward to the lower spine, lodging between a vertebra and the dura (spinal cord sheath).
- Other wire fragments moved within the general cervical area.
- Due to the migrating fragments, surgical removal of some of these pieces became necessary.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff brought a damage suit against the neurosurgeon, alleging medical malpractice.
- The action proceeded to trial before a jury.
- At the close of plaintiff’s case, defendant’s counsel made a nonsuit motion.
- The trial court granted the nonsuit motion and entered judgment in favor of the defendant.
- Plaintiff appealed from the ensuing judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
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 apply in a medical malpractice action where a surgical wire fragments and migrates unexpectedly, when expert testimony indicates the surgeon followed standard practice and other potential causes (such as manufacturing defect or hospital storage) are equally probable, thereby precluding a nonsuit?
Opinions:
Majority - Friedman, J.
No, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply in this medical malpractice action because the evidence, including expert testimony, did not reasonably point to the defendant neurosurgeon's negligence as a probable cause, but rather allowed for equally probable alternative causes by un-sued parties. The court stated that res ipsa loquitur creates an inference of negligence if (a) the accident was probably the result of someone’s negligence and (b) the defendant is probably the responsible person. While the unusual occurrence of dangerous, migrating metal fragments might allow laypersons to infer 'someone's' negligence, satisfying the first precondition, the crucial second precondition of pointing the finger of probable fault at the defendant was not met. Expert testimony from both the defendant and another neurosurgeon, Dr. Holland, indicated that the wire was of the proper kind, the defendant's inspection and installation methods met standard practice, and its fragmentation was unexpected and unique, thereby pointing away from the defendant's negligence. The court noted that common experience suggests other possibilities such as latent manufacturing defects or metal fatigue during storage at the hospital. Since neither the manufacturer of the wire nor the hospital that supplied it was sued, and their negligence was 'just as possible as some unspecified and indeterminate lack of care on the surgeon’s part,' negligence could not be inferred against the sole defendant without some evidence reasonably pointing to the surgeon. The court affirmed the trial court's correct conclusion that there was no evidence to support the application of res ipsa loquitur, and also dismissed the plaintiff's secondary contention of a prima facie case of negligence independent of res ipsa loquitur, noting that such an egregious medical carelessness claim required expert testimony, which the plaintiff failed to provide.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the limitations of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine in medical malpractice, particularly when an adverse outcome could plausibly stem from multiple sources of negligence, and only one potential tortfeasor is before the court. It emphasizes that while an unexpected and unusual event in surgery might suggest negligence generally, a plaintiff must still adduce evidence to establish a probable inference of the defendant's specific negligence, beyond mere speculation, especially when expert testimony indicates adherence to professional standards. The decision serves as a significant precedent in defining the burden of proof for medical malpractice claims when `res ipsa loquitur` is invoked, often preventing cases from reaching a jury where the cause of injury is not demonstrably linked to the defendant's actions over other un-sued parties.
