2 total
Defendant's motion to reject jury verdict in obstetrical malpractice case dismissed as findings were supported by evidence.
Following an obstetrical malpractice trial where the jury found the defendant obstetrician 32% liable for the infant plaintiff's severe cerebral palsy, the defendant brought a motion under Rule 52.08 to dismiss the action or order a retrial.
The defendant argued the jury gave conflicting answers on causation and that there was no evidence to support their findings on the standard of care and delay in delivery.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the jury's use of the word 'contributed' did not conflict with the 'but for' causation test, and that there was ample expert evidence supporting the jury's conclusion that the defendant's failure to promptly prepare for an emergency c-section caused the infant's brain damage.
Judgment was ordered to be entered in accordance with the jury's verdict.
Jury question on causation in medical negligence trial must use the conventional 'but for' test.
During an ongoing medical negligence trial involving a minor plaintiff who suffered severe brain damage at birth, the parties disputed the phrasing of the jury question on causation.
The plaintiffs argued for the phrase 'caused or contributed to', relying on recent jurisprudence involving multiple tortfeasors.
The defendant argued for the conventional 'but for' standard.
The court held that the factual matrix was not so confusing as to preclude the conventional 'but for' test, and ordered the jury questions to be phrased using the 'but for' standard.
