| Venue: |
CA SC
|
|
| Facts: |
Ybarra gots to have an appendectomy. When he wakes up, he's got
pain in his shoulder, and it gets worse, and he loses the
use of his arm. Experts say it is a paralysis of traumatic
origin. Ybarra doesn't know how this happened, so he names
as a defendant anyone who was ever directly involved in his
treatment. |
|
| Posture: |
Dismissed at trial, appeal by plaintiff. |
|
| Issue: |
Is the plaintiff's case a proper candidate for a res ipsa
loquitur instruction, so that that the inference of
negligence would make dismissal improper? |
|
| Holding: |
Yes. Reversed. |
|
| Rule: |
Where a plaintiff receives unusual injuries while unconscious and
in the course of medical treatment, all those who had control
of instrumentalities which might have caused the injuries may
be called upon to rebut the inference of negligence. |
|
| Reasoning: |
People in hospitals get treated by all kinds of folks. Just because
they're unconscious doesn't mean they should be barred from
recovering for injuries. Res ipsa requires only that
- The injury not be due to the patient's actions
- The injury be of a kind not normally occurring in the absence
of negligence
- The injury be caused by an instrumentality in the control of
the defendant
Each of those conditions is met here. The fact that the plaintiff
can't identify a specific defendant is not a disqualifier: in fact
it's the exact reason that res ipsa is appropriate-- the
defendants are the ones who have the ability to rebut the
presumption, and it's appropriate to ask them to do so. |
|
| Dicta: |
If we did otherwise, we'd render nugatory the maxim that for every
wrong there is a remedy. |
|