rehearing en banc denied
How later courts described this case
- rehearing en banc denied
- “in his own or similar localities”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM.
This is a malpractice case, in which the complaint alleged that the defendant oral surgeon had negligently performed an operation for the removal of diseased and impacted teeth, during which plaintiff’s jaw was broken. The trial court directed a verdict for defendant, at the close of plaintiff’s case, on the issues of specific negligence and res ipsa loquitur. It left with the jury the issue of warranty; this was ultimately decided in favor of defendant. This appeal followed.
We find no error affecting substantial rights. Plaintiff offered no evi *661 ■dence of specific negligence, or evidence that defendant did not exercise “ ‘that •degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by the profession in his own or similar localities’.” Rodgers v. Lawson, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 282 , 170 F.2d 157, 158 (1948). As to res ipsa loquitur, that doctrine applies only “where the occurrence complained of ordinarily would not happen in the absence of negligence.” Quick v. Thurston, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 169, 17-2 , 290 F.2d 360, 363 , 88 A.L.R.2d 299 (1961). “The thing does not speak for itself” unless a layman can say as a matter of common knowledge that the consequences of the professional treatment are not those which ordinarily occur if due care has been exercised. The plaintiff may not rest his case on the mere fact of his injury or rely upon the jury’s untutored sympathies. In short, where the question turns on the merits and the performance of scientific treatment, the issue may not be resolved by the jury without the aid of expert opinion. Here the plaintiff offered no such evidence. Rodgers v. Lawson, supra, 83 U.S.App. D.C. at 285, 170 F.2d at 161 ; Hohenthal v. Smith, 72 App.D.C. 343, 346 , 114 F.2d 494, 497 (1940).
Affirmed.