res ipsa loquitur not applicable where plaintiff’s expert confirmed defendant’s testimony that negligence was not the only potential source of infection
How later courts described this case
- res ipsa loquitur not applicable where plaintiff’s expert confirmed defendant’s testimony that negligence was not the only potential source of infection
- “Due to the great variety of infections and complications which, despite all precautions and skills, sometimes follow accepted and standard medical treatment, courts reject the notion that because [injury] follows a treatment an inference of negligence is to be made.”
- testimony that “there were two possible theories as to source of [plaintiffs] infection,” one entailing negligence and the other not, was insufficient to create a jury issue on proximate causation
- sufficiency of medical attendance and caliber of medical treatment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BAZELON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting separately).
I agree with Judge Edgerton’s analysis of the testimony. And having in mind that we must view the record most favorably to plaintiff, I think it does not provide a provident basis for directing a verdict in favor of the defendant at the close of plaintiff’s case. But this does not foreclose the possibility that such a basis may appear after defendant puts in his case. Cf. Loketch v. Capital Transit Co., 1957, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 287 , 289, 248 F.2d 609, 611 , citing Peigh v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 1953, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 198, 202 , 204 F.2d 391, 396 , 44 A.L.R.2d 671 .