Court Opinion

ID: 9571368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:31:13.623915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:21.772629
License: Public Domain

Knutson, Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result that there should be a new trial. The instructions of the trial court were too restrictive. The case differs from many others in that here proof of original negligence on the part of the defendants was established beyond any doubt. The question really is whether the negligence in administering adrenalin instead of the drug that was supposed to be injected, and the attempt to neutralize the effect of such drug, caused a physical condition which continued until plaintiff Margaret Schulz fell, resulting in her final injury. It is not a case where the original negligence of the defendants is not established. It would seem to me that once the original negligence was established the jury could infer from the record before us that the continuing effect of that negligence was the proximate cause of the ultimate fall. In any event, it would seem that the defendants should have the burden of going forth with the evidence and showing, if they can, that the effect of the drug originally administered had worn off to the extent that it was not the proximate cause *481of the fall. Under all circumstances involved here it appears to me that there is a question of proximate cause that lies within the realm of the jury’s determination.