Kramer Service, Inc. v. Wilkins
186 So. 625 (1939)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff must prove that a defendant's negligence was the probable, not merely possible, cause of their injury. When the issue of causation involves complex medical or scientific matters beyond the knowledge of laypersons, undisputed expert testimony that establishes only a possibility of causation is insufficient as a matter of law to support a verdict.
Facts:
- Clockey, a guest at Appellant's hotel, was assigned a room with a large, cone-shaped break in the glass of the transom above the door.
- Clockey promptly informed the hotel clerk of the broken transom and the room's poor condition.
- Approximately two hours later, Appellee, a business associate of Clockey, came to the room for a conference.
- As Appellee was leaving, he opened the door in an ordinary manner, which caused the broken piece of glass to fall from the transom.
- The falling glass struck Appellee on the head, inflicting several wounds, including a jagged abrasion on his temple.
- The temple wound did not heal, and about two years after the incident, Appellee was diagnosed with skin cancer at the exact location of the injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellee sued Appellant in a trial court, alleging the injury from the falling glass led to his cancer.
- During the trial, the court refused Appellant's request for a jury instruction that would have prevented the jury from considering the cancer when calculating damages.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellee, awarding him $20,000 in damages.
- Appellant, the hotel owner, appealed the trial court's judgment to this appellate court.
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 evidence showing only a mere possibility that a defendant's negligence caused a plaintiff's subsequent medical condition provide a sufficient evidentiary foundation to support a jury's damage award for that condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Griffith, J.
No. Evidence that only establishes a possibility of causation is insufficient to sustain a verdict; a plaintiff must prove the defendant's negligence was the probable cause of the injury. The court rejected the logical fallacy of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' (after this, therefore because of this), affirming that mere coexistence of negligence and injury is not enough. The medical expert testimony presented only established a one in one hundred possibility that the trauma caused the cancer, which fails to meet the required standard of probability. For complex issues like the cause of cancer, which lie beyond the common knowledge of jurors, undisputed expert testimony is conclusive. Since the experts could not establish a probable causal link, the jury was not permitted to award damages for the cancer.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the standard of proof for causation in negligence cases, reinforcing that a plaintiff must demonstrate probability, not mere possibility. It establishes a critical rule regarding expert testimony in cases involving complex scientific or medical issues: when such testimony is undisputed and outside the ken of the average juror, it becomes binding on the trier of fact. This decision prevents juries from engaging in speculation or relying on the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy to find causation where science does not support it. Consequently, this precedent raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs in complex medical injury cases, requiring them to secure expert opinions that state a defendant's conduct was, more likely than not, the cause of the harm.
Unlock the full brief for Kramer Service, Inc. v. Wilkins