*1 L.L.P., Minor, A. of for amici curiae support respondents Robert Ohio Commerce, Chapter Independent of Ohio of the National Federation of Chamber Business, Association. and Ohio Self-Insurers Sater, Pease, L.L.P., Schuster,
Vorys, Seymour & Richard D. Michael J. Hendershot, K. Wilhelmy, Benjamin Shepler, Kristi A. of support respon- for of dents amicus curiae Ohio Council Retail Merchants. Hall, Appellee,
Estate
General Medical
Akron
Appellants.
al.;
al.,
et
Center
Patterson
et
Ctr.,
[Cite as Estate
Hall v.
Akron Gen. Med.
(¶ The issue before us is whether the plaintiff malpractice this medical 1} was to a jury case entitled instruction on the ipsa loquitur. doctrine defendants-appellants argue entitled to the instruction (1) two plaintiff presented reasons: testimony of witnesses who opinions specific offered on the act of they believe caused the (2) injury and evidence was on presented equally two efficient causes of the injury, one of which is not to negligence. attributable follow, For we trial the reasons hold that the court properly declined Therefore, to instruct the ipsa loquitur. the doctrine we reverse court judgment for further appeals remand consideration of the assignments of error moot. appellate considered 10, 2003, Hall September Lurene died on N. Airón General Medical following procedure Center Richard performed defendant-appellant Patter- Jr., M.D., place dialysis jugular son catheter into her Prior to vein. Hall had a procedure, problems including pressure number of blood high Treat- dialysis June 2003. kidney began kidney She and chronic disease. in the dialysis catheter jugular through into her vein ments were administered *2 later, infected and months the catheter became side of her neck. Three right Patterson, removed an who radiologist, was referred Dr. interventional Hall 8, 2003, on without incident.1 September the catheter 10, 2003, was to insert days later, Two on Patterson scheduled September 4}{¶ in Hall’s neck to chose to use vein the left side of dialysis a new catheter. He the Using in vein on the side. present right avoid the infection that had been the vein, just a above the the inserted needle image ultrasound locate Patterson through needle into the then inserted microwire the collarbone. Patterson with a procedure vein toward vena cava.2 He monitored this jugular superior the that what is inside the fluoroscope produces images happening real-time patient. needle, vein. He leaving Patterson the the microwire the removed microwire. a coaxial over the microwire and then removed the
fitted introducer introducer, Next, through monitoring process Patterson slid a guidewire he inserted fluoroscope. guidewire place, successively with a was Once in order to the size of increasing guidewire three dilators of size over the increase through pushed hole the needle. Patterson each dilator puncture created muscle, skin, large enough implant and vein until the hole was him to catheter. concluded, at the Shortly complained pain after was Hall procedure
incision site. Patterson medication and checked her condition prescribed and was cool He lethargic, clammy. minutes later. She was her skin Hall’s treating physician. her vital and instructed nurse to call signs checked consciousness, her thereafter, Hall lost and efforts to resuscitate Soon in the cava. were unsuccessful. An revealed a laceration vena autopsy superior laceration, had into the sac surrounds the As result blood leaked that heart, arrest, which led to death. resulting cardiac her Couch, E. April The administrator of the estate plaintiff-appellee,
8}{¶ Hall, N. on behalf mother’s of kin. Lurene filed this action of her estate and next dialysis- complaint alleged negligently performed The that Patterson had Hall’s procedure, causing catheterization death. radiologist performs procedures patients inserting wires and
1. An interventional involve through monitoring body body into the movement with the use other devices while device’s x-ray images. head, neck, arms, superior large thorax vena vein that from the cava is receives blood Ed.1995) (26th Dictionary right and delivers it to atrium of the heart. Stedman’s Medical trial, At the plaintiff presented two witnesses who testified that Patterson’s negligence proximately caused Hall’s death. Dr. Michael Foley, an interventional radiology expert, testified that Patterson’s actions fell below the standard of care as a very he inserted dilator sharp guidewire. over a According Foley, to Dr. likely Patterson most pulled guidewire back somewhat as he it, advanced the dilator over exposing the dilator’s sharp edge, which lacerated the superior that, vena cava. Foley testified opinion, his Patterson failed to notice the laceration as he inserting dilators, something should not occur with careful monitoring of the patient. Kremen, Dr. Jeffrey a vascular surgeon, also testified the dilator veered off course during procedure caused the laceration. Two expert witnesses testified on behalf of Patterson. Dr. Matt
Leavitt, an interventional nephrologist, testified that a laceration awas *3 rare complication of procedure. He testified that an abnormality or in weakness Hall’s vessel it have made susceptible to laceration in and that his opinion, the laceration likely was most by caused friction from an instrument rubbing along the wall of the superior vena cava. He further testified that a physician can cause a tear while performing this procedure even if performance his with complies the standard of care such an injury is a known possible complication of the procedure.
(¶ Dean, Dr. Mark an interventional radiologist, 11} testified that Hall’s blood vessels likely were by weakened the infection from prior by catheter or her overall compromised medical condition and that the weak vessel was lacerated in the regular course of procedure. At the evidence, close of all the plaintiff asked for a jury instruction on
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The court denied request. The court stated that because there multiple were potential factors, causative it “up trier of fact to determine which version they believe.” jury The returned a defense verdict. The plaintiff moved for a new trial on the basis that the trial court erred
as a matter of law when it refused to instruct the on the doctrine of ipsa loquitur. The trial motion, court denied the plaintiff appealed.
(¶ The Ninth District Court of Appeals 14} reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. court concluded that the plaintiffs evidence met the requirements for an instruction on the doctrine loquitur and that the lower court by erred refusing to so instruct jury. The cause is before this court upon acceptance of a discretionary
appeal.
Evolution not but does evidentiary permits, rule is an Res circumstantial evidence. from an inference of a to draw require, (1944), 144 St. 28 O.O. RR. Ohio v. New York Cent. Fink underpinnings the historical Fink examined syllabus. two of the paragraph cause when the true by necessity loquitur, originated of the rule of res defendant but by determined by was known or could be of an occurrence that the term .2d 456. Fink noted 56 N.E Id. 28 O.O. by plaintiff. 722, 159 a (Ex.1863), 2 Eng.Rep.R. H. & C. Byrne v. Boadle appeared first a window and shop flour had rolled from in which a barrel of England case to produce was unable plaintiff below. In that passerby struck a Byrne had fallen. The court why how or the barrel explain evidence to or negligence, evidence of barrel itself was sufficient falling determined translated, for itself.” which, thing speaks means “the literally ipsa loquitur,” “res later, rule a case where applied years English Seven exclusively that was bridge from the wall of brick had fallen 5-6, citing 56 N.E .2d Fink at controlled the defendant. Co., Q.B. 411. The use B. L.R. Kearney Ry. v. London & S.C. The rule allows and into the United States. through England phrase spread accident, an unusual surrounding circumstances appraisal sense was the conclusion that the accident to draw the obvious permitting was not why the accident explain fault and the defendant requiring defendant’s with Dispense Desire to in the Buttermilk: Tennessee’s Wampler, Fly his fault. (2002), 69 Locality Rule Malpractice Common Sense and the Medical Layperson *4 385, Tenn.L.Rev. Supreme opinion in an Court The term was first mentioned Ohio 529, (1906), 379, N.E. a 74 Ohio St. 78 Holzenkamp Traction Co. v.
Cincinnati car. step a who was about to onto the trolley pole person case in which a fell on judicial warranted in notice of the taking court held that the trial court “was The fall in course of events that a does not break and trolley pole fact” of it and management in the construction or unless there was maxim of res on the properly charged therefore the court had 389, at N.E. 529. loquitur. Id. 78 322, (1949), 503, 39 O.O. In v. Recreation Ctr. 151 Ohio St. Colony Soltz that the rule 167, applied of its decisions past this court reviewed some
87
falling
in cases involving
The rule was
most often
ipsa loquitur.
applied
carriers,
danger-
that
a
presented
or other situations
objects,
common
passenger
167;
508,
322,
87 N.E.2d
injury or death.
Id.
ous threat of serious
(window
165
(1943), 141
26
49 N.E.2d
v.
Ohio St.
O.O.
Worland Rothstein
Ry.
v. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern
dropping
sponge);
cleaner
a wet
Walters
(1924),
Ohio St.
639, this court held that res ipsa loquitur
apply,
did not
because the defendant
had
that
produced evidence
the accident was the result of natural
In
causes.
Loomis,
poles
electric
and wires fell onto
plaintiffs
automobile at an
intersection.
plaintiff alleged
had negligently
defendant
maintained
however,
poles;
the defendant presented evidence that the
fell
poles
during
an unusually strong wind storm. Loomis held that
did not apply
under these circumstances and that the jury
properly
instructed to consider
possible
both asserted
172-173,
causes
the occurrence.
Id. at
risky may occur even when physicians are careful. “A physician is maxim, not a warrantor of cures. If the ‘Res ipsa loquitur,’ were to a applicable this, case like failure to evidence, cure were held to be however slight, of negligence on the part physician or surgeon causing result, the bad few would be courageous enough practice art, healing for they would have to ” assume financial liability nearly all the ‘ills flesh is heir to.’ Ewing (Cir.Ct., 1897), Thus, Goode S.D.Ohio 78 F. a jury in a *5 malpractice rarely conclude, action would be able to based on experience alone, that the injury was one that did ordinarily not occur in the absence of negligence. Nevertheless, gradually courts began plaintiffs allow to use
doctrine of
ipsa loquitur
res
malpractice
medical
cases.
it
Initially, was used
necessary because
was not
testimony
expert
cases where
only
knowledge
from their own
could determine
jurors
was so obvious
negligence
when a
example,
negligent
had been
physician
that the
and common sense
—for
patient’s
from the
foreign object
or other
sponge
failed to remove
physician
(1928),
164 N.E.
119 Ohio St.
See,
v. Hall
e.g., Ault
body during surgery.
closed);
was
Brad-
(failure
the incision
before
surgical sponges
to remove
(bone
Application of Res
was entitled
concluded that the
appeals
In this
the court of
sufficient evidence to
having produced
on res
ipsa loquitur,
to a
instruction
events,
injury
does not occur
ordinary
type
that in the
course of
show
¶ 30,
evidence A two elements for the doctrine plaintiff must establish {¶27} “(1) was, at the instrumentality causing apply: [t]hat causing creation of the condition injury, or at the time of the time (2) defendant; and control of the management under the exclusive ordinary course of that in the occurred under such circumstances Hake v. had been observed.” it occurred if care events would have *6 306
George Brewing 66-67, Wiedemann 52 O.O.2d 703; Fink, Ohio St. parties do not dispute requirement, the first Patterson was control of the instruments inserted into the body. decedent’s The defendants- appellants, employer, Services, Inc., Patterson and his Radiology Imaging & contend that the First, failed establish the second requirement. they contend that plaintiff presented because the “direct specific evidence” of acts witnesses, from two expert res ipsa loquitur, which permits jurors to draw an evidence, inference of from circumstantial did not Second, apply. the defendants contend that experts defense testified that the laceration could have occurred in the absence of negligence and that res ipsa loquitur does not apply when the record contains evidence of two equally efficient causes of the injury, one of which is not attributed to negligence. case, In this there i.e., was no direct evidence of negligence, evidence
based upon personal
or
knowledge
observation. The plaintiffs evidence to
establish medical malpractice consisted of opinions
expert
medical witnesses on
the appropriate standard of care
specific
and the
cause of
injury:
Hall’s
negligently
Patterson
guidewire,
withdrew the
allowing a sharp dilator to lacerate
the superior vena cava. We have
that a plaintiffs
held
introducing expert
testimony regarding possible specific acts of negligence does
preclude
instruction on
“if
justified
otherwise
by the circumstantial
evidence adduced at trial.” Morgan v.
Hosp.,
Children’s
at
Ohio St.3d
OBR
{¶
her expert
30}
witnesses to
establish the second requirement of res ipsa loquitur.
In addition to testifying
act,
about a specific negligent
both witnesses testified that a laceration of the
superior vena cava would not
occur
the ordinary course of
procedure
without negligence. The use of expert testimony in a medical malpractice case to
establish that an injury occurred under such circumstances that in
course of events it would not
if
have occurred
ordinary care had been observed
does not disqualify such a case for application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Morgan v. Children’s
syllabus. However, defense expert witnesses
testified that there could be nonnegligent causes of the injury. They testified
that a
in a
tear
blood
vessel is
known complication
procedure,
of this
and the
poor condition of Hall’s blood
vessels
have made them susceptible to a
laceration. They also testified that
may have occurred
if
even
Patterson’s actions
with
complied
Thus,
the standard of care.
the defendants
causes of the
equally
the record contains evidence of two
efficient
argue,
Buick,
Cincinnati,
Inc. v.
apply, citing Jennings
so res
does not
102,
Buick, reasoning that the Jennings agreed that the defense plaintiffs expert whereas, case, theory was in this testified equally probable, plaintiffs experts rejected that the was injury likely by negligence more caused the defense theories. Jennings Buick is mistaken. The In appellate interpretation court’s case,
that the court stated that “the evidence tended to show that there were equally probable causes of the break which were not negli attributable Id., gence city.” of the at O.O.3d presented was evidence which “[T]here trier the facts would have jury allowed the to find that one or potential another cause of the attributable to the city equally probable was as was a cause city.” attributable to the of the Id. at Thus, because there were opposing opinions causation—at least one of which was not attributable to negligence rule of res did not —the apply. Buick We hold that the reasoning applies here. This case
involved a complicated procedure, and the witnesses expert presented' opposing opinions regarding injury, the cause of Hall’s one not attributable to negligence. experts agreed perforation of a blood vessel is a known risk complication procedure performed compliance of this even when with the Thus, Instead, standard of care. it is not a clear case of the trial negligence. court was with presented equally probable causes of the which meant the cause of the question jury Although determine. alternative,” theory plaintiff discounted the defense as a “far-fetched acknowledges credibility question jury of the witnesses is a for the Thus, case, trial court properly assess. under the circumstances of this ipsa loquitur. refused to instruct the on res ipsa loquitur, with the doctrine of res which holding This is consistent concerning acts or omissions specific proof
was “founded absence Morgan Hosp., v. Children’s negligence.” which would constitute (Holmes, J., dissenting). N.E.2d 464 Under the evidence 18 OBR equally probable in this there are two efficient and causes presented thus, it have to instruct the that it could infer injury; improper would been it can produced, Based on the evidence this is not a situation where Rather, represents that “the for itself.” this case the classic thing speaks be said stated, trier of appeals between witnesses. As the court of “The battle weigh experts fact must the evidence and decide believe.” 2008-Ohio- ¶ trial Consequently, properly 2008 WL declined to ipsa loquitur. instruct the on the doctrine of res
Conclusion reasons, judgment For the we reverse the of the court of foregoing appeals assignments and remand the cause for consideration of the of error *8 were considered moot.
Judgment reversed. JJ., O’Connor and concur. O’Donnell, J., in judgment only. concurs
Lanzinger, C.J., JJ.,
Moyer, Cupp, Pfeifer dissent. J., concurring judgment only. in
Lanzinger, I in in I Although judgment concur the this would also overrule {¶ 37} Morgan v. Children’s 18 OBR 480 N.E.2d 464, as an expansion scope ipsa loquitur permit unwarranted of the of res jury to an injury during complicated infer caused medical procedure, testimony necessary even when is the expert explain procedure and injury.1 the two that a prerequisites must show to allow “(1)
instruction on res
to be
are
ipsa loquitur
given
instrumentality
[t]hat
was, at
causing
injury
injury,
the time of the
or at the time of the creation of
causing
management
condition
under the exclusive
and control of
Cupp,
1.
I
Unlike Justice
do not believe that this court must wait for an invitation to overrule a case
analysis
parties
pursuant
before we can do so.
I would also not wait for the
to do an
to Westfield
Galatis,
216,
reasons other injuries so inherently risky, Many procedures such is limited. are cases care. Finally, meet standard of physicians’ even when actions occur jurors, understanding lay beyond the procedures most medical are Hubach v. 133 Ohio St. explain an them. See Cole requiring expert 137, 142, contrary need for an is N.E.2d 283. The O.O. See Prosser & loquitur. fundamental behind the doctrine premise (5th Ed.1984) 243, Keeton on Torts Section Morgan applies I of the dissent in also reasoning believe
case:
specific proof concerning
“The doctrine is founded
absence of
negligence.
acts
It also has been stated that
or omissions
would constitute
Here,
‘thing
for itself.’
only
speaks
can
be
when the
applied
doctrine
noted,
to the defendant’s
plaintiff relating
there was evidence adduced
Also,
cannot
plaintiffs] injury
speak
be deemed
itself
[the
testimony
explain
complex
required
where
technical and medical
result,
produced conflicting opinions
probable
as to the more
and which evidence
injury.
cause of the
cause
probable
“It
to choose
more
question
became
* *
evidence,
and,
just
did
*.”
after
all of such
considering
(Holmes, J.,
Morgan, *9 dissenting). complicated occurred a during Hall’s eventual death
{¶ 43}
regarding
procedure,
expert
presented opposing opinions
witnesses
whether
Although
had
her
could have
if
care
been observed.
the
occurred
alternative,”
a
the
theory
the
as
“far-fetched
defense
discounts
defense
“unlikely
as can
experts
plaintiffs experts’ explanation
characterized
be.”
witnesses, making
expert
jury
a
represents
This case
classic battle between
rather than
ipsa loquitur inappropriate.
holding,
usurping
instruction on res
Our
role,
the
“weigh
relies on
as the trier of fact to
evidence and
jury’s
jury
Ctr.,
Hall v.
Med.
to
Estate
Akron Gen.
Ninth
experts
decide
believe.”
¶
3918068,
24066,
apply. reasonably where facts other, than likely causes more the instruction on inference probable Buick, (1980), may not be Inc. v. 63 given.” Cincinnati 167, 171-172, 102, 1385, 17 v. citing Huggins Ohio St.2d O.O.3d 406 N.E.2d John 171, 50, (1964), 448; & Morrell Co. 176 St. 27 198 N.E.2d v. Ohio O.O.2d Schafer (1961), 506, 439, 708; 14 171 Ohio 172 Krupar Wells St. N.E.2d v. Procter (1954), 489, 363, 7; & Gamble Co. 160 St. 117 N.E.2d Colony Ohio Soltz v. (1949), 322, 167; Recreation Ctr. St. 87 N.E.2d v. Ohio O.O. Glowacki Ry. 451, 157 N.W. & Power N.E. 21. Ohio St. Under the circumstances this the trial court properly refused jury loquitur.
instruct the on res I concur in ipsa judgment only.
Moyer, C.J., dissenting. majority Because the refuses to our apply precedent directly us, resolves the issue before I This respectfully dissent. court has that “[i]t held is a well-established that a principle not refuse as a law matter of on ipsa merely instruct the doctrine of res upon the basis that sufficiently defendant’s evidence rebuts the of such an making inference.” Mor- gan Children’s Ohio St.3d 18 OBR of that Application well-established principle presented facts would us to compel find that the have case should been instructed doctrine loquitur. The plaintiff Morgan complica- entered comatose state following
tions from surgery thymus remove his Id. at gland. 18 OBR 464. A brought action medical-malpractice against the anesthesiolo- gist on his behalf. Id. expert plaintiffs plaintiffs oxygen testified deprivation nurse, resulted from the failure of the defendant’s agent, ventilate Id. adequately plaintiff. expert The defendant’s concluded that the deprivation oxygen blocking was caused bubbles of air the blood vessels. Id. The trial court refused the instruct plaintiffs request on res loquitur, 186-187, verdict for returned the defendant. Id. at OBR We held on appeal the instruction was despite warranted causation.
competing theories on Id. at 18 OBR 480 N.E .2d 464. *10 on precedent from we role of Relying jury underscored the the finder the Id. It of fact. would be “an invasion of of trial province jury” the the for the court a of to declare as matter law that the is not a jury permitted to draw has offered his own the defendant negligence inference of because reasonable Id. explanation. competing Jennings relies on the instead import Morgan, majority the of Ignoring 49}
{¶ 167, 171, 17 Buick, Inc. Cincinnati it the evidence adduced holding: by its has been shown N.E.2d and “Where injury, of the one of probable causes equally that are two efficient there defendant, ipsa the rule of res negligence which is not attributable the however, the next very overlooks apply.” majority, not The loquitur does Buick, that trier of facts could clarifies “where the Jennings sentence in which other, than the the likely one of causes more reasonably probable not find the added.) (Emphasis inference of not be given.” instruction on the only It when has no favor jury Id. is therefore basis loquitur over the that the instruction is plaintiffs explanation ipsa defendant’s res observes, credibility of wit impermissible. majority determining As the for jury, favoring nesses determinations could be basis is left such noted, the plaintiffs theory. properly plaintiffs As the court of here own appeals equally likely damage Buick admitted that it was negli from a cause other than the defendant’s plaintiffs property resulted Ctr., gence. App. Hall v. Med. Summit No. 2008- Estate Akron Gen. of ¶ Ohio-4332, not, thus, reasonably 23. The could infer WL that would not occurred absent the defendant’s damage have of adopted majority largely rule a substantial risk The new runs cases. The medical-malpractice the use foreclosing cause only present explanation defendant must now a realistic alternative injury, very availability experts the abundant likely given which seems cases, will be of the benefit of the deprived and the medical-malpractice the trial majority may judge doctrine. The envision long-standing negligence that is making theory exactly determination for each but probability presented, jury’s that this court to avoid usurpation sought Morgan. role there not remain today, Morgan Until was no indication did viable majority it without so. Because precedent. saying Morgan overrules fact, likely jury, authorizes the as the ultimate finder of determine cause hold that trial judgment appeals I would affirm the of the court loquitur. instructed on the I note should have doctrine of if it merely does permit such an instruction infer theory likely decides that the is more than defendant’s. plaintiffs causation “ Instead, liability can to find if ‘the occurred only be used it would ordinary under circumstances in the of events not have such course ” 188, 18 occurred if care had observed.’ Morgan, been Brewing OBR Hake v. Wiedemann quoting George *11 312 65, 66-67, 366, That
(1970), 52 requirement O.O.2d any jury given must be in instruction on the doctrine. included J., foregoing opinion. concurs Pfeifer,
Cupp, J., dissenting. I Chief Justice dissent in that both the issue in agree Moyer’s with context in which it are virtually indistinguishable case and the factual arises from (1985), 185, Morgan those in v. Children’s 18 Ohio 18 OBR St.3d N.E.2d that as a our decision be consequence, should controlled Morgan. (or estate) cases, injured injured In an patient patient’s both brought cases, action In
medical-malpractice against treating physician. both patient each physician presented expert testimony and the as the cause of the patient’s injuries, in each opinion testimony patient’s case the of the experts and the In physician’s experts directly conflicted. each the trial court denied patient’s request jury loquitur. instruct the on res Both ipsa trial ipsa courts reasoned that the res inference loquitur inapplicable was because there were competing opinions injury. cause of the In this court trial Morgan, held that the court erred denying the requested ipsa loquitur instruction and remanded for a the case new trial. In light similarity our present Morgan, close case decision in the present governed by case should be our decision in Morgan under the principle stare decisis. This would result the affirmance of the of appeals’ the trial judgment reversing court for failure to instruct on the doctrine of res loquitur. convinced, however, I am that Morgan correctly not decided. I
have about reservations of the res application ipsa loquitur doctrine in cases when medical-malpractice conflicting expert is the basis on testimony the issue must be decided. The use of res in such ipsa loquitur circumstances seems to beyond justification. extend the doctrine of its scope rule, a general medical-malpractice As cases require expert testimony because the patient determination whether a fell physician’s treatment of within appropriate jury’s standard care is beyond knowledge (1938), experience. Hubach v. Cole Ohio St. however,
283. Res ipsa loquitur,
evidentiary
“permits,
is an
rule
but does
require,
draw inference of
the logical premises
when
Buick,
for the
inference are demonstrated.”
Inc. Cincinnati
words,
O.O.3d
applied medical-malpractice
many
in
because
injuries
physician
occur even
no
has been
inherently risky
can
when
Torts, 243,
has
regard,
Keeton
Section
In this
Ohio
negligent. Prosser &
on
in
long
loquitur
inapplicable
that the
is
medical-
recognized
ipsa
doctrine
or
solely
is
on unsuccessful treatment
malpractice actions when
claim based
(1965),
1, 8, 34
unfortunate results. Oberlin v. Friedman
5 Ohio St.2d
O.O.2d
Still,
in
loquitur
medical-malpractice
has been used
cases.
“the lack of
or
medical-malpractice
first
actions when
skill
applied
doctrine was
care of
and
so
to within the
physician
surgeon
apparent
comprehen
is
be
to under
requires
experience
sion of
and
common
and
laymen
only
knowledge
it,
in
necessary.”
stand
and
such case
is not
Bruni
judge
expert testimony
and
127, 130,
{¶ 59} only in opinion testimony experts provides us which one before ordinarily one that would jury’s basis for a determination whether Thus, relying on common not occur in the absence instead facts, is relying from experience draw an inference knowledge be any longer on circumstances can it said expert testimony. Under these lack physician’s apparent of care is so that it is obvious from the jury’s knowledge experience? The common-knowledge component of res ipsa loquitur should that an injury’s mean cause must be discernable without as, expert testimony, in example, object the cases where a in foreign is left Thus, patient’s body surgery. after applying the res doctrine circumstances in which conflicting medical-expert testimony is needed to deter- and, mine whether negligence was involved particularly, more that the injury is one which would not occur in the absence of negligence appears to be extending beyond the doctrine purpose and rationale that justify its use. case, however, In this we have not been asked to overrule Morgan. Nor any analysis argument
has
or
been offered
or at
argument
briefs
oral
might meet
adopted
Galatis,
the test
Ins. Co. v.
Westfield
Moyer, C.J., concurs in foregoing opinion. Co., L.P.A., Paul W. Flowers; Flowers Paul Schneiderman; W. Stan B. Mantkowski, T. Gary for appellee. Andress, L.P.A., Leak, Roetzel & Douglas Stacy G. Ragon, for appellants.