Opinion ID: 1968425
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: 301 Res I psa Loquitur.

Text: Plaintiffs contend that this is a proper case in which to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and that, if so invoked, inferences of negligence could be drawn against both defendants which would support a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs. This court carefully considered the problem as to when res ipsa loquitur should be invoked in medical malpractice cases in Fehrman v. Smirl, supra . Under the principles enunciated therein that doctrine is not applicable to the present case. As previously pointed out, this is not a case in which jurors as laymen should be permitted to infer negligence from an unusual result. Plaintiffs' counsel strenuously argue that we should expand our holding in Fehrman so as to apply the rarity test to the instant facts. This we decline to do. Without application of the rarity test, no inference of negligence may be drawn by a jury under facts which are not based on expert medical testimony. In this case the expert medical testimony adduced by plaintiffs is wholly insufficient to support such an inference.