Plaintiffs below, Pair Lee Nevauex and her husband, sued Park Place Hospital, Susan Gotcher, Dr. Harvey Randolph, and Dr. David H. Boals, for radiation burns she sustained from cobalt therapy for the treatment of uterine bleeding.
The record reflects that Nevauex was hospitalized in March of 1976 by her family doctor, Dr. Randolph, for assorted medical problems which included uterine bleeding. Dr. Randolph felt that the best medical treatment for his patient was a D & C or curetment, a surgical procedure whereby the wall of the uterus is scraped; so he referred Pair Lee to a surgeon. After the surgery Pair Lee's bleeding reoccurred, and Dr. Randolph then recommended cobalt therapy as a possible treatment for the condition; the patient was referred to a specialist in the field of radiology, Dr. David H. Boals. Pair Lee submitted to cobalt therapy under the direction of Dr. Boals at Park Place Hospital. Dr. Randolph testified that at least a month after Nevauex’s last treatment session conducted under Dr. Boals’ direction, he saw the patient who complained of injury and referred her back to Dr. Boals. The wound required plastic surgery. Dr. Boals testified that plaintiff’s injury resulted from his miscalculation of the cobalt dosage to be administered to the patient. The cobalt source had been changed shortly before the tragic event in question, and, although Dr. Boals was aware of this change, he inadvertently used the wrong set of figures in computing Pair Lee’s cobalt dosage, based on the older source potency information.
Plaintiffs and Dr. Boals settled all claims against Dr. Boals for $125,000, and he was removed from the suit. Plaintiffs bring this appeal on thirty-six points of error from a jury finding of no liability against the remaining defendants: Park Place Hospital, the institution where the therapy in question was administered to Pair Lee Ne-vauex; Dr. Harvey Randolph, Pair Lee Ne-vauex’s general practitioner; and Susan Gotcher, the technician who administered the treatments to Pair Lee Nevauex as prescribed by Dr. David H. Boals. The *925 parties herein will be referred to as they were below, or by name.
We will generally group plaintiffs’ points of error as they have done in their brief. The first group concerns the “informed consent” requirement. Our Supreme Court has held that physicians and surgeons “have a duty to make a reasonable disclosure to a patient of risks that are incident to a medical diagnosis and treatment” to enable the patient to exercise an informed consent.
Wilson v. Scott,
Plaintiffs also object to the definition of “informed consent” given by the court and the refusal of several of their own submissions. The court’s definition was “[i]nformed consent means such consent as would be given by a patient to whom the risks incident to treatment by radiation therapy have been disclosed to the patient by a general practitioner of ordinary prudence, under the same or similar circumstances.” We believe this definition adequately tracks
Tex.Civ.Code Ann. art. 4590i § 6.02
(Vernon Supp.1982-1983). Furthermore, we doubt the trial court was required to define the term. A definition is not required for a term used in an instruction where the language has a clear and common meaning.
Steinberger v. Archer County,
—Beaumont 1979, no writ);
Union Oil Co. of California v. Richard,
Plaintiffs’ next group of points of error complains of the trial court’s action in granting hospital’s and Gotcher’s (the technician) exception to plaintiffs’ pleading of “res ipsa loquitur.” As a general rule “res ipsa loquitur” is not applicable in medical malpractice eases.
Pekar v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital,
Stinnett
v.
Price,
In
Sohio Pipeline Co. v. Harmon,
Plaintiffs’ next group of points complains of the trial court’s action in sustaining hos *926 pital’s exception to allegations of strict liability and implied warranty.
The hospital and Ms. Gotcher are not liable under the doctrine of strict liability because the radiation service supplied by defendants was a service, not a product. Strict liability does not apply to defective services as opposed to defective products.
In
Langford v. Kraft,
“In his law review article entitled ‘Strict Tort Liability in Texas’, 11 Houston L.Rev. 1043, 1066 (1974), the author (James B. Sales) tersely states the rule of Barbee v. Rogers [425 S.W.2d 342 (Tex.1968)]: ‘The concept of strict liability [in tort] applies to defective products, but not to defective services.’ ”
But even if we assume radiation therapy is a product, the strict liability doctrine would not apply since it was “intimately and inseparably connected with the professional services rendered.”
Thomas v. St. Joseph’s Hospital,
Plaintiffs’ next points urge error in the trial court’s action of sustaining exceptions to allegations of fraud and gross negligence. Even if this be error, it was harmless because plaintiffs were permitted to introduce evidence on the subject.
Gibbs v. Wheeler,
Plaintiffs have a point complaining of the exclusion by the trial court of evidence of a previous burn to another patient. Ordinarily evidence of other acts or transactions such as this would be inadmissible under the doctrine of “res inter alios acta.” The circumstances of the previous burn are not the same as plaintiff’s: that patient was being treated for cancer and was given a higher dosage of rads. See
Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Cooper,
Plaintiffs have other points which we find without merit, and they are overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
A hospital in some situations may well be a merchant. See
Providence Hospital v. Truly,