| Venue: | NY Ct. App. |
| Facts: | After surgery to remove an ovarian cyst, the patient gets RSD: perhaps this is due to the position in which her arm was restrained during surgery. |
| Posture: | Summary judgment denied at trial (defendants contend this isn't a res ipsa case, because the need for expert testimony about the injury is per se evidence that a jury couldn't rationally find that the accident would not normally occur without negligence-- they've got no basis for making that judgment). The Appellate Division reverses, saying that indeed, res ipsa is not permitted in cases where the jury's common knowledge isn't up to the task. Appeal by plaintiff. |
| Issue: | Can we have a res ipsa instruction in a case where evidence that the injury would not have occurred without negligence comes in the form of expert testimony? |
| Holding: | Yes. The reversal is reversed. The jury should hear this case, and the defendant can rebut the res ipsa presumption. The initial denial of summary judgment was proper. |
| Rule: | Expert testimony can be used to bridge the gap between common knowledge, lacking the experience necessary to reach a conclusion that an occurrance would not normally take place in the absence of negligence, and physician knowledge, not lacking it. |
| Reasoning: | Society is getting increasingly sophisticated and specialized. Nobody can be expected ot know it all. Just because knowledge is specialized doesn' tmean it's not pervasive in a field. Expert opinion educates the jury-- it doesn't prevent them from being capable finders of fact. |
| Dicta: | |