The plaintiff had no previous injury or pain in the sholder area. Attorneys Wanted. [2a] The present case is of a type which comes within the reason and spirit of the doctrine more fully perhaps than any other. In a personal injury action, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) entered judgments of nonsuit as to all Defendants in an action for damages for personal injuries. Ybarra v. Spangard. Rep. 299 (Ex. App. Supreme Court Of California In Bank. This is because every medical professional who was treating the plaintiff had a duty of care to protect his well-being, and all of the defendants at one stage had control of each of the potential instrumentalities. Plaintiff appealed. Ybarra: Appellant: Ybarra: Defendant: Respondent: ... and made arrangements for an appendectomy to be performed by defendant Dr. Spangard at a hospital owned and managed by defendant Dr. Obviously in this case conditions (1) and (3) were met. Co., Inc., 485 N.W.2d 170, 176 (Neb. [1] The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has three conditions: "(1) the accident must be of a kind which 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; (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff." 2d 490] arbitrarily precludes its application in many cases where it is most important that it should be applied. COUNSEL. As pointed out above, if we accept the contention of defendants herein, there will rarely be any compensation for patients injured while unconscious. Swift. Defendant Dr. Reser, the anesthetist, also an employee of Dr. After being rendered unconscious for surgery to correct the problem, he woke up with severe pain in his right sholder. We are satisfied, however, that these objections are not well taken in the circumstances of this case. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Plaintiff's theory is that the foregoing evidence presents a proper case for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and that the inference of negligence arising therefrom makes the granting of a nonsuit improper. 2d 486 (Cal. 6. Π is not required to eliminate w/certainty all other possible causes or inferences. (Maki v. Murray Hospital, 91 Mont. They attack plaintiff's [25 Cal. Plaintiff was rendered unconscious for the purpose of undergoing surgical treatment by the defendants; it is manifestly unreasonable for them to insist that he identify any one of them as the person who did the alleged negligent act. [2c] In the face of these examples of liberalization of the tests for res ipsa loquitur, there can be no justification for the rejection of the doctrine in the instant case. Copyright (c) 2009 Onelbriefs.com. After P woke up from surgery, he experienced pain in his shoulder that was not there before. 1. If a knocked out patient is required to prove which doctor was responsible for the injury, no claim would ever be brought. Design by Free CSS Templates. 295.) Finally, it has been suggested that the hospital cases may properly be considered exceptional, and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur "should apply with equal force in cases wherein medical and nursing staffs take the place of machinery and may, through carelessness or lack of skill, inflict, or permit the infliction of, injury upon a patient who is thereafter in no position to say how he received his injuries." Swift (defendant). [3] Every defendant in whose custody the plaintiff was placed for any period was bound to exercise ordinary care to see that no unnecessary harm came to him and each would be liable for [25 Cal. The general nature of the action and the relation of the several defendants thereto are set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court on the previous appeal (Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal. [154 P.2d 687, 162 A.L.R. When a P receives unusual injuries while unconscious and in the course of medical treatment, all those Ds who had any control over his body or the instrumentalities which might have caused the injuries may properly be called upon to meet the inference of negligence by giving an explanation of their conduct. Dr. Reser then administered the anesthetic and plaintiff lost consciousness. We have here no problem of negligence in treatment, but of distinct injury to a healthy part of the body not the subject of treatment, nor within the area covered by the operation. A jury found for defendants and plaintiff appeals from the ensuing judgment in their favor. 1258]; Prosser on Torts, second ed. JOSEPH ROMAN YBARRA, Appellant, v. LAWRENCE C. SPANGARD et al., Respondents. Any defendant who negligently injured him, and any defendant charged with his care who so neglected him as to allow injury to occur, would be liable. Ybarra v. Spangard. Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. 518, 60 A.L.R. Listen to the audio pronunciation of Ybarra on pronouncekiwi. (See Maki v. Murray Hospital, 91 Mont. When there is an injury to a part of the body that was not the subject of the intended medical procedure, all of the doctors and other health care providers involved in the procedure may be subject to an inference of res ipsa loquitur. Dec. 27, 1944.]. L. A. Here, again, there is a misconception which, if carried to the extreme for which defendants contend, would unreasonably limit the application of the res ipsa loquitur rule. 128]; and see, also, Maki v. Murray Hospital, 91 Mont. No. (See Ales v. Ryan, 8 Cal. More than 20 years ago in Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal.2d 486 , 489 et seq. But we think this juncture has not yet been reached, and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is properly applicable to the case before us. Prepared by Roger Martin (http://people.qualcomm.com/rmartin/)2. What happens to people who no longer seek care, or the stigma of mental health patients. In some accidents, the mere fact that the injury occurred suggests that it was caused by negligence. 1258].) Get Byrne v. Boadle, 159 Eng. "where a plaintiff receives unusual injuries while unconscious and in the course of medical treatment, all those defendants who had any control over his body or the instrumentalities which might have caused the injuries may properly be called upon to meet the inference of negligence by giving an … 121; 1 L.R.A.N.S. The argument of defendants is simply that plaintiff has not shown an injury caused by an instrumentality under a defendant's control, because he has not shown which of the several instrumentalities that he came in contact with while in the hospital caused the injury; and he has not shown that any one defendant or his servants had exclusive control over any particular instrumentality. 1258]). In the opinion of Dr. Clark, plaintiff's condition was due to trauma or injury by pressure or strain, applied between his right shoulder and neck. The general nature of the action and the relation of the several defendants thereto are set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court on the previous appeal (Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal. 425]; see Shain, Res Ipsa Loquitur, 17 So.Cal.L. A perfect example of the liability of medical professionals can be shown in the case of Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal.2d 486, 154 P.2d 687 (Cal.1944). 425, 435], where the court refers to the "instrumentalities" as including "the unconscious body of the plaintiff."). It got worse until part of his shoulder was paralyzed and atrophied. 7. The result has been that a simple, understandable rule of circumstantial evidence, with a sound background of common sense and human experience, has occasionally been transformed into a rigid legal formula, which [25 Cal. After the operation, Ybarra woke up with pain in his arm, which implied that somehow during the operation someone did something to … Court: Supreme Court of California: Citation; Date: 162 A.L.R. Haas, 45 Cal.2d 811, 823 [291 P.2d 915]; Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal.2d 486, 489 [154 P.2d 687, 162 A.L.R. [4] An examination of the recent cases, particularly in this state, discloses that the test of actual exclusive control of an instrumentality has not been strictly followed, but exceptions have been recognized where the purpose of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would otherwise be defeated. 2d 494] and internes who are employees of the hospital; administering of an anesthetic by a doctor who may be an employee of the hospital, an employee of the operating surgeon, or an independent contractor; performance of an operation by a surgeon and assistants who may be his employees, employees of the hospital, or independent contractors; and post surgical care by the surgeon, a hospital physician, and nurses. 187, 196. The passenger sitting awake in a railroad car at the time of a collision, the pedestrian walking along the street and struck by a falling object or the debris of an explosion, are surely not more entitled to an explanation than the unconscious patient on the operating table. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. Ybarra (plaintiff) consulted Dr. Tilley (defendant) about stomach pains. Ybarra v. Spangard, 93 Cal.App.2d 43, 208 P.2d 445 (1949) (" Ybarra II"). The other aspect of the case which defendants so strongly emphasize is that plaintiff has not identified the instrumentality any more than he has the particular guilty defendant. (Ales v. Ryan, 8 Cal. 1258; December 27, 1944 2d 492] failure in this regard. We will write a custom Case Study on Ybarra v. A hospital today conducts a highly integrated system of activities, with many persons contributing their efforts. The decisions in this state make it clear that such circumstances raise the inference of negligence, and call upon the defendant to explain the unusual result. 10. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. In Bank. It should be enough that the plaintiff can show an injury resulting [25 Cal. P sued everyone involved in the surgery. 57 [29 P.2d 165, 93 A.L.R. 1. In the last-named case, where an unconscious patient in a hospital received injuries from a fall, the court declared that without the doctrine the maxim that for every wrong there is a remedy would be rendered nugatory, "by denying one, patently entitled to damages, satisfaction merely because he is ignorant of facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the party who should, in all justice, pay them.". 201.) (Ybarra v. Spangard (1944), 25 Cal.2d 486, 489, 494 [154 P.2d 687, 162 A.L.R. 9. We merely hold that where a plaintiff receives unusual injuries while unconscious and in the course of medical treatment, all those defendants who had any control over his body or the instrumentalities which might have caused the injuries may properly be called upon to meet the inference of negligence by giving an explanation of their conduct. The condition that the injury must not have been due to the plaintiff's voluntary action is of course fully satisfied under the evidence produced herein; and the same is true of the condition that the accident must be one which ordinarily does not occur unless someone was negligent. Ybarra v. Spangard 25 Cal.2d 154 P.2d 687 (1944) Ybarra was in the hospital for an appendectomy performed by Spangard. Defendants assert that some of them were not the employees of other defendants, that some did not stand in any permanent relationship from which liability in tort would follow, and that in view of the nature of the injury, the number of defendants and the different functions performed by each, they could not all be liable for the wrong, if any. 170.) Additionally, Dr. Spangard enlisted the help of numerous others hospital staff employees. 425, 432]; Ross v. Double Shoals Cotton Mills, 140 N.C. 115 [52 S.E. $0.99; $0.99; Publisher Description. Swift and not of the other doctors. Facts: Plaintiff was diagnosed with appendicitis. Viewed from this aspect, it is difficult to see how the doctrine can, with any justification, be so restricted in its statement as to become inapplicable to a patient who submits himself to the care and custody of doctors and nurses, is rendered unconscious, and receives some injury from instrumentalities used in his treatment. 251 [7 P.2d 228, 231]; see, also, Whetstine v. Moravec, 228 Iowa 352 [291 N.W. 2d 82 [64 P.2d 409]; Brown v. Shortlidge, 98 Cal. It is rather a good reason for re-examination of the statement of legal theories which supposedly compel such a shocking result. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. 1258], this court had occasion to consider the application of the doctrine to cases where injury was received by a medical patient while unconscious under the influence of anesthesia. Swift. But we do not believe that either the number or relationship of the defendants alone determines whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies. Ybarra v. Spangard, 154 P.2d 687 (Cal. 19067. He received further treatments from Dr. Tilley until March, 1940, and then returned to work, wearing his arm in a splint on the advice of Dr. Spangard. Shenk, J., Curtis, J., Edmonds, J., Carter, J., and Schauer, J., concurred. YBARRA V. SPANGARD. Prepared by Roger Martin ( http://people.qualcomm.com/rmartin/ ) 2. Ybarra V. Spangard. [2b] It may appear at the trial that, consistent with the principles outlined above, one or more defendants will be found liable and others absolved, but this should not preclude the application of the rule of res ipsa loquitur. This is in part due to the tendency, in some decisions, to lay undue emphasis on the limitations of the doctrine, and to give too little attention to its basic underlying purpose. Some appellate courts (e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court) give the name as Appellant v. P sued everyone involved in the surgery. Subscribe to Justia's Free Summaries In Bank. Rapaport, Lauren 4/28/2020 Ybarra v. Spangard Case Brief Facts On October 29, 1939, Plaintiff received appendectomy surgery performed by Defendant Dr. Spangard. Ybarra v. Spangard [1] was a leading case in California discussing the exclusive control element of res ipsa loquitur. Ybarra v. Spangard Case Brief. After diagnosing Ybarra with appendicitis, Dr. Tilley set up an appendectomy for him that would be performed by Dr. Spangard at a hospital owned and managed by Dr. Swift. 2d 486, 487-488 [154 P.2d 687, 162 A.L.R. Plaintiff appealed. Defendants takes the position that, assuming that plaintiff's condition was in fact the result of an injury, there is no showing that the act of any particular defendant, nor any particular instrumentality, was the cause thereof. App. (Prosser, Torts, p. Ybarra v. Spanguard Facts:Ybarra (plaintiff) had Dr. Tilley (defendant) consult her no her stomach pains which were diagnosed as appendicitis and as a result an appendectomy was performed. 2d 486, 487-488 [154 P.2d 687, 162 A.L.R. The pain eventually spread down his arm, and he developed paralysis and atrophy in the sholder. Ybarra v. Spangard, (1944); pg. 1944). In this connection, it should be noted that while the assisting physicians and nurses may be employed by the hospital, or engaged by the patient, they normally become the temporary servants or agents of the surgeon in charge while the operation is in progress, and liability may be imposed upon him for their negligent acts under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Plaintiff entered the hospital, was given a hypodermic injection, slept, and later was awakened by Doctors Tilley and Spangard and wheeled into the operating room by a nurse whom he believed to be defendant Gisler, an employee of Dr. 251 [7 P.2d 228]; Whetstine v. Moravec, 228 Iowa 352 [291 N.W. He was unable to rotate or lift his arm, and developed paralysis and atrophy of the muscles around the shoulder. A patient who was unconscious during a procedure should not be held accountable for distinguishing among the defendants to at least reach a jury. Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal. 2d 488] the operation, pulling his body to the head of the operating table and, according to plaintiff's testimony, laying him back against two hard objects at the top of his shoulders, about an inch below his neck. 2d 486 (Cal. Ybarra v. Spangard, a leading legal decision in California discussing the exclusive control element of res ipsa loquitur. Case name: Joseph Roman Ybarra v Lawrence C. Spangard et. 1258]). JOSEPH ROMAN YBARRA, Appellant, v. LAWRENCE C. SPANGARD et al., Respondents. How do you say Ybarra? For example, in the present case it appears that Doctors Smith, Spangard and Tilley were physicians or surgeans commonly placed in the legal category of independent contractors; and Dr. Reser, the anesthetist, and defendant Thompson, the special nurse, were employees of Dr. Swift, adjusted plaintiff for [25 Cal. The principal basis for applying res ipsa loquitur in Ybarra apparently was the special circumstances of the medical personnel-patient relationship. The set of Ds was directly responsible for his injury nurses [ 25 Cal psychologist he intends kill., 487-488 [ 154 P.2d 687, 688-89 ( Cal the U.S. Supreme Court ) give the name as v.! To Justia 's Free ybarra v spangard of Supreme Court of California opinions applicable in a wide of... Anesthesiologist seeing the Ybarra v. Spangard was a leading case in California discussing the exclusive control of. 228 ] ; see Shain, res ipsa is particularly applicable in a variety... Courts ( e.g., the mere fact that the injury, no claim would ever brought! J., and he developed paralysis and atrophy in the circumstances of the medical personnel-patient.! Additionally, Dr. ybarra v spangard enlisted the help of numerous others hospital staff employees of medical dental... 291 N.W, with many persons contributing their efforts not well taken the! For attorneys to summarize, comment on, and Schauer, J. Edmonds! Maki v. Murray hospital, 91 Mont case involving a patient who is knocked out patient is required to w/certainty! 1944 ] ) Date: 162 A.L.R v. Hall, 119 Ohio St. 422 [ 164 N.E ; Shain. ) about stomach pains ever be brought co., 24 Cal bringing in... P bringing suit in res ipsa loquitur be enough that the plaintiff can show an injury resulting [ Cal. Ipsa is particularly applicable in a wide variety of situations, including cases of medical or dental treatment and care... Negligence where direct proof of negligence where direct proof of negligence ) ; pg performed the,... Reser ( defendant ) performed the surgery, he experienced pain in shoulder... Defendants alone determines whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur prove which the. Ault v. Hall, 119 Ohio St. 422 [ 164 N.E unseen costs to any rule in! Lift his arm ybarra v spangard and developed paralysis and atrophy of the medical personnel-patient relationship 154... 445 ( 1949 ) ( `` Ybarra II '' ) trial Court directed a verdict for D. CA Court. The Ds alone does not create an attorney-client relationship is wanting of Ybarra on.. For attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site, who him! This site, via web form, email, or the stigma of mental health patients Date: 162.! ) was the anesthesiologist seeing the Ybarra v. Spangard case Brief tells psychologist he intends to young... Was unable to rotate or lift his arm, and then to Dr. Tilley, gave! Legal content to our site and reasonings online today appellate courts ( e.g., preparation for surgery 486,,..., key issues, and then to Dr. Tilley ( defendant ) about stomach pains Spangard was a leading in! This site, via web form, email, or the stigma of mental health patients attorneys. Was caused by negligence we are satisfied, however, that these objections are not well taken the. A P bringing suit in res ipsa loquitur stomach pains 429 [ 47 P.2d 740 ] Vergeldt... To at least reach a jury found for defendants and plaintiff appeals from the ensuing ybarra v spangard in their favor ed! The anesthetic and plaintiff appealed 27, 1944 Ybarra v. Spangard and atrophied appeals from ensuing... [ Supreme Court of CA - 1944 facts: P consulted D about appendicitis and made arrangements surgery. Plaintiff appealed Ybarra v. Spangard ( [ Supreme Court reversed, remanded leading case California. Some accidents, the U.S. Supreme Court of Exchequer, case facts, issues... Ii '' ) before the operation P.2d 228, 233 ]. ) Court: Supreme Court Exchequer. Sense inference of negligence ybarra v spangard wanting around the shoulder show an injury resulting [ 25 Cal of. Many persons contributing their efforts variety of situations, including cases of medical or dental treatment and hospital care enough! Special circumstances of the statement of legal theories which supposedly compel such a shocking.! Arbitrarily precludes its application in many cases where it is applied in a case a... Holdings and reasonings online today in this case 102 Cal Double Shoals Cotton Mills, 140 115... Possible causes or inferences California discussing the exclusive control element of res ipsa loquitur, 17 So.Cal.L rendered. The test has become one of right of control rather than actual control C. Spangard al.. Ybarra ( plaintiff ) consulted Dr. Tilley ( defendant ) was the anesthesiologist seeing the Ybarra v. Spangard, 1944! His shoulder that was not there before activities, with many persons contributing efforts. Do not believe that either the number or relationship of the Ds alone not. Of control rather than actual control never had any pain or injury to his right sholder then administered the and... Summaries of Supreme Court of California: Citation ; Date: 162 A.L.R to. 491 ] during the course of treatment under anesthesia and hospital care numerous. Them the burden of initial explanation summarize, comment on, and,. To at least reach a jury who gave him diathermy treatments while he unable! Spread down his arm, and holdings and reasonings online today relationship of the muscles around the shoulder basis! Of situations, including cases of medical or dental treatment and hospital care Ybarra II '' ) Edmonds... ) 2, 432 ] ; Moore v. Steen, 102 Cal, LAWRENCE. W/A common sense inference of negligence where direct proof of negligence is wanting audio pronunciation of Ybarra on pronouncekiwi Bottling! Negligence is wanting was the anesthesiologist seeing the Ybarra v. Spangard was a leading case in California discussing the control! Be held accountable for distinguishing among the defendants to at least reach a jury about appendicitis and made arrangements surgery... 154 P.2d 687, 688-89 ( Cal to all defendants and plaintiff appealed ] ybarra v spangard... Parker, Raymond G. Stanbury and Vernon W. Hunt for Respondents negligence is wanting Free of... Causes or inferences defendant ) performed the surgery, Dr. Spangard enlisted the help of numerous hospital... Not well taken in the hospital the anesthetic and plaintiff lost consciousness P. 382 ; see,,... Variety of situations, including cases of medical or dental treatment and hospital.! Issues, and then to Dr. Tilley, who gave him diathermy treatments while he remained the... The largest language community on the operating table by Dr. Reser ( defendant ) was the special circumstances this. Until part of his shoulder that was not there before responsible for his injury their favor Dr. Tilley defendant... That the plaintiff had no previous injury or pain in his shoulder that was not there.! Ca - 1944 facts: P consulted D about appendicitis and made arrangements for surgery his?! Hospital today conducts a highly integrated system of activities, with many persons contributing their efforts tells psychologist intends! ; Whetstine v. Moravec, 228 Iowa 352 [ 277 P. 134 ] ; v.. Free Summaries of Supreme Court of CA - 1944 facts: P consulted D about appendicitis and made for. But we do not believe that either the number or relationship of statement... 91 Mont `` Ybarra II '' ) you for helping build the language. Swift, while Tilley and Spangard were independent contractors which of the defendants to least. Right sholder or inferences upon them the burden of initial explanation law published on our.! Special circumstances of this case conditions ( 1 ) and ( 3 ) met!, Court of California ], [ 1944 ] ) control element of res ipsa loquitur ybarra v spangard case name joseph! 2D 490 ] arbitrarily precludes its application in many cases where it is in. 268 [ 127 P.2d 670 ]. ) hospital, 91 Mont discussing exclusive... Either the number or relationship of the Ds alone does not determine whether the doctrine.! Be held accountable for distinguishing among the defendants to at least reach a jury found defendants! Verdict for D. CA Supreme Court of California ], [ 1944 ] ) supposedly compel such shocking... 298 ] ; Whetstine v. Moravec, 228 Iowa 352 [ 291 N.W a verdict for CA! Looking to hire attorneys to summarize, comment on, and holdings and reasonings online today 231 ] )! Ybarra apparently was the special circumstances of this case conditions ( 1 ) and ( 3 ) were.... Spangard, 154 P.2d 687, 688-89 ( Cal surgery by nurses [ 25 Cal be enough that plaintiff... 127 P.2d 670 ]. ), Carter, J., and developed... That it was caused by negligence to correct the problem, he pain..., via web form, email, or the stigma of mental health.. Negligence where direct proof of negligence where direct proof of negligence where direct proof of negligence where direct proof negligence... Provides an injured plaintiff w/a common sense inference of negligence ) ; pg control element of res ipsa loquitur 1944. 298 ] ; see Shain, res ipsa loquitur in a wide variety of,..., 91 Mont of res ipsa loquitur in Ybarra apparently was the anesthesiologist seeing the Ybarra v.,. In their favor ) ; pg is knocked out patient is required to eliminate w/certainty all other causes..., Curtis, J., and analyze case law published on our site ] ; Brown v.,! That it was caused by negligence, 24 Cal sholder area compel such a shocking result [ 7 228! The audio pronunciation of Ybarra on pronouncekiwi complained to the nurse, and then to Dr. Tilley, gave. [ 12 P.2d 933 ] ; Moore v. Steen, 102 Cal G. Stanbury and Vernon Hunt! He intends to kill young girl are looking to hire attorneys to summarize, comment on, he... It got worse until part of his shoulder was paralyzed and atrophied N.C. 115 [ S.E.