Estate of Hall v. Akron General Medical Center

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a jury instruction on res ipsa loquitur in a medical-malpractice action involving a fatal laceration during dialysis-catheter placement. The court concluded that expert testimony presented two equally probable causes of the injury, one nonnegligent, making the cause a question for the jury rather than permitting an inference of negligence. The court reversed the court of appeals and remanded for consideration of assignments of error previously deemed moot.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff's presentation of expert testimony regarding a specific act of negligence does not, by itself, preclude a res ipsa loquitur instruction if the doctrine is otherwise justified by the circumstantial evidence.
2. When the evidence presents two equally efficient and probable causes of an injury, one of which is not attributable to the defendant's negligence, res ipsa loquitur does not apply.
3. The trial court properly declined to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur in a medical-malpractice action.
2. Whether the presence of expert testimony concerning a specific negligent act precluded a res ipsa loquitur instruction.
3. Whether evidence of equally probable negligent and nonnegligent causes precluded a res ipsa loquitur instruction.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded