Opinion ID: 552375
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure of the crew to administer CPR

Text: 22 Bach's survivors also asserts a negligence claim based on the failure of the crew to administer CPR to him. Undisputed medical testimony indicates that Bach had no more than a fifteen percent chance of surviving even if the crew had rendered CPR and electrical defibrillation had been available. From this uncontradicted evidence, no rational factfinder could conclude that the crew's failure to administer CPR more likely than not caused Bach's death. See W. Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on Torts section 41, at 269 (5th Ed.1984) (plaintiff must introduce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the conduct of the defendant was a cause in fact of the result); Restatement (Second) by Torts sections 431, 433 comment b (1965). 23 Bach's survivors seek to avoid this factual weakness by urging this court to adopt a special rule of causation, the loss of a chance of survival doctrine. Under this doctrine, which as far as we can tell, has been confined to medical malpractice cases, plaintiffs who cannot meet the ordinary standards of causation are allowed to recover for negligent conduct that decreases their chances of survival. See generally Annotation, Medical Malpractice: Loss of Chance Causality, 54 ALR 4th 10 (1987). 4 24 We decline the invitation to apply this doctrine in this section 905(b) case, well beyond the context in which it has been developed. 25 Bach's survivors have therefore failed to prove causation and failed to persuade us to adopt the loss of a chance of survival doctrine. They therefore may not recover in negligence for the failure of the crew to administer CPR.