1192 N.E.2d 492 (N.Y. 1997)
Res ipsa loquitur allows a jury to infer negligence when an event occurs that ordinarily wouldn’t happen without negligence, the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality, and the plaintiff didn’t contribute to the injury; this can apply in medical malpractice when a foreign object is left inside a patient, even with conflicting expert testimony.
Summary
Florence Fenzel underwent a hysterectomy performed by Dr. Sperrazza at St. Francis Hospital. Post-surgery, she experienced stomach pain, and an X-ray revealed a large laparotomy pad in her abdomen. The pad was surgically removed, but Fenzel’s condition deteriorated, and she died. Her family sued, alleging negligence. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur, and the jury found for the defendants. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that res ipsa loquitur was applicable because leaving a large surgical pad inside a patient is the type of event that doesn’t occur absent negligence, and expert testimony didn’t preclude its application.
Facts
Florence Fenzel underwent a hysterectomy performed by Dr. Ralph Sperrazza at St. Francis Hospital in August 1986. Ten laparotomy pads were available and used during the procedure. Several months after the operation, Fenzel began experiencing stomach pain. X-rays revealed a foreign object in her abdomen. A subsequent surgery revealed a large (18-by-18 inch) laparotomy pad inside her bowel. Fenzel’s condition worsened, and she died from infection-related illnesses.
Procedural History
Fenzel’s family sued Dr. Sperrazza and St. Francis Hospital for medical malpractice. The trial court denied the plaintiffs’ request to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiffs moved to set aside the verdict, which was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, granting a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a medical malpractice case where a laparotomy pad was left inside the patient’s abdomen following surgery.
Holding
Yes, because leaving a large laparotomy pad inside a patient’s abdomen following surgery is the kind of event that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, and the defendants had exclusive control over the instrumentality that caused the injury. The plaintiffs satisfied the conditions necessary for a res ipsa loquitur instruction.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals stated that res ipsa loquitur allows a jury to infer negligence from the circumstances of an accident where the specific cause is unknown. The court outlined the three conditions necessary for res ipsa loquitur to apply: (1) the event must be of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.
The Court emphasized that the plaintiff doesn’t need to eliminate all other possible causes, but only needs to show that negligence is the most likely explanation. The court stated, “Manifestly, the lay jury here did not require expert testimony to conclude that an 18-by-18-inch laparotomy pad is not ordinarily discovered inside a patient’s abdomen following a hysterectomy in the absence of negligence.” The court distinguished this type of case from those requiring expert testimony to establish the standard of care. The fact that the defendants presented an alternative theory (that the patient swallowed the pad) did not preclude the application of res ipsa loquitur; it merely presented a question of fact for the jury to decide. The Court noted, “[F]rom this the jury may still be permitted to infer that the defendant’s witnesses are not to be believed, that something went wrong with the precautions described, that the full truth has not been told”.