Court Opinion

ID: 9712707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:58:38.749664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:13.816171
License: Public Domain

Snell, J.
(concurring specially) — I concur in the result and agree that the verdict must be set aside. We do not have before us any issue based on allegations of specific negligence. The sole question is the sufficiency of the evidence to generate a jury question under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The evidence shows that immediately following a partial administration of a topical anesthetic the plaintiff suffered an unfortunate and unexpected reaction. Nothing further appears to sustain the plaintiff’s claim.
What is commonly called the second foundation fact necessary to support the res ipsa loquitur inference is that the happening of the injury was such as in the ordinary course of events would not have occurred without negligence on the part of defendants.
This requirement rests on common experience. It is a rule of evidence, not of substantive law. Thompson v. Burke Engineering Sales Co., 252 Iowa 146, 152, 106 N.W.2d 351, 355.
The doctrine does not create liability without fault. The doctrine does not assume that there is necessarily negligence preceding misfortune.
Orr v. Des Moines Electric Light Co., 207 Iowa 1149 at 1155, 222 N.W. 560, 562, quotes Corpus Juris as follows: “ * * the doctrine is applicable only where the physical cause of the injury and the attendant circumstances indicate such an unusual occurrence that in their very nature they carry a strong inherent probability of negligence, and in the light of ordinary experience would presumably not have happened, if those who had the management or control exercised proper care. Accordingly the mere occurrence of an unusual or unexplained accident or injury, if not such as necessarily to involve negligence, does *148not warrant the application of the doctrine, * * *’ 45 Corpus Juris 1211.”
The only evidence for plaintiff related to his unfortunate reaction to medication. That evidence alone will not “carry a strong inherent probability of negligence.” From that evidence alone it cannot be said that “in the light of ordinary experience” the reaction would not have occurred with proper care.
Doubt, if any (or curiosity), as to what happened is removed by the uncontradicted evidence of defendants.
The anesthetic used had been previously, and was subsequently, tested by the manufacturer. It was extensively used in the medical profession. The application to the plaintiff was by approved procedure in an amount well below recognized and recommended tolerances.
The plaintiff suffered an allergic reaction. The doctor acted promptly to relieve the distress. An allergic reaction will not support a right to recover damages. Bonowski v. Revlon, Inc., 251 Iowa 141, 100 N.W.2d 5.