Court Opinion

ID: 9844328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:00:58.885942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:32.857591
License: Public Domain

HOLMAN, J.,
concurring.
I agree with that portion of the Chief Justice’s concurring opinion which holds that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should not be applicable to a medical malpractice case where the particular injury inflicted, though seldom occurring, is an inherent risk of the operation performed. I believe the application of res *348ipsa in such a situation to he poor public policy. If a jury case of negligent conduct is made out in such circumstances by an unfavorable result, physicians either will not perform such operation or will do so at great risk. Neither result is desirable.
If I were to hold that the doctrine of res ipsa is applicable, as does the principal opinion in this ease, I would hold, as it does, that the trial judge was not in error in refusing to give plaintiff’s proffered instruction on the subject. In addition to the reasons specified in that opinion for such holding, I would add that the requested instruction was so voluminous and convoluted as to be virtually unintelligible to the average juror. The instruction was as follows:
“You are instructed that the happening of an accident, by and of itself, in the course of surgery, or that injuries occurred in surgery, or that a patient has been damaged as a result of surgery, do not of itself or themselves raise a presumption or inference of negligence against the defendant.
“You may, however, find that there arises an inference that the proximate cause of the occurrence or accident was some negligent conduct on the part of defendant, if you find from the evidence the following things:
“(1) That the accident was of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence,
“(2) That the accident was caused by an instrumentality or agency within the exclusive control of the defendant, or in other words that the defendant would be responsible for any negligence connected with the event, and
“(3) That the occurrence was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.
“I instruct you that if you find by a preponder*349anee of the evidence that the ‘accident’ complained of did occur and will not occur ordinarily when a surgeon has used the ordinary and standard degree of skill and care and has used the ordinary and accepted practices and procedures, the standard in both instances being, of course, that which ordinary specialists in middle ear surgery would follow, in this or similar communities, and you further find that the defendant was in exclusive control and without any voluntary action or contribution of the plaintiff, and that the injury was caused by some instrumentality within the control of defendant, then I instruct you are entitled to find an inference of negligence ehargable [sic] to the defendant.
“This inference, if found, is substantial evidence, and is sufficient in the absence of more satisfactory evidence to the contrary to justify a finding of negligence against defendant.
“This instruction is what is called in the law ‘res ipsa loquitur’, a legal term which means generally that ‘the thing speaks for itself.’
“In giving this instruction I do not infer to you that you should find there was negligence on the part of the defendant or that there should be an inference of negligence. By giving the instruction it means only that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence which, if believed by you, would justify reasonable minds to infer that ‘some’ negligent act caused the injury or injuries during the surgery.
“Now, if there is other evidence which, if believed by yon, is more pursuasive [sic] and such that it would, in your minds, over-come the inference raised, if you so find and such an inference is made by you, I instruct you such evidence would be sufficient to rebut any inference of negligence raised.
“In rebutting such inference, if any is made, the *350defendant should show that he did, in fact, exercise the care and diligence required of him, or, in other words, that the occurrence came about without being caused by any failure to exercise the care, skill and diligence required of him. In making such a showing, it is not necessary for the defendants to overcome the inference by a preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiff’s burden of proving negligence by a preponderance of the evidence is not changed by the rule of res ipsa loquitur. It follows, therefore, that in order to hold defendants liable on the basis of this instruction, the inference of negligence must have greater weight, more convincing force in the mind of the jury, than the opposing explanation offered by the defendants. If such a preponderance in plaintiff’s favor exists, then it must be found that some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant was a proximate cause of the injury; but if such preponderance does not exist, if the evidence is more convincing in defendant’s favor, or if in the jury’s mind there is an even balance as between the Aveight of the inference and the weight of the contrary explanation, neither having the more convincing force, then your finding on this instruction must be for the defendant.
“The fact that I am instructing you on Tes ipsa loquitur’ does not mean that plaintiff has or has not proved her specific allegations of negligence nor that you may not render a verdict in her favor on those specific allegations.
“Now, this instruction, that is on Tes ipsa loquitur’ only applies to the alleged surgical negligence in injuring the facial nerve and to the alleged negligence in injury to the labyrinth, both of AAdiich claimed injuries were allegedly occurrences in the surgical procedures.. This instruction has no application and should not be considered by you in connection with any matters involving the alleged negligent diagnosis and treatment.” ' .
If proffered instructions are ho more intelligible to *351the layman than the above, it is not error to refuse to give them.