This ruling addresses a dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants regarding the wording of causation questions to be put to the jury in a medical negligence trial.
The plaintiffs sought "caused or contributed to" language and no particulars, arguing complexity and potential undermining of the verdict.
The defendants advocated for "but for" language and required particulars, citing clarity and the need for evidentiary foundation.
The court found that "but for" language should be used for causation questions, given the discrete nature of the alleged negligence of each defendant doctor.
Furthermore, the court ruled that the jury must provide particulars of their causation findings to ensure understanding of instructions and proper evidentiary basis, consistent with practices for standard of care particulars.
