Haugen v. BioLife Plasma Services
North Dakota Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
SANDSTROM, Justice.
[¶ 1] Rhonda Haugen appeals from a judgment dismissing her personal injury lawsuit. The judgment was entered after a jury found BioLife Plasma Services was not negligent. Haugen contends the district court erred when it did not instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loqui-tur. We affirm, concluding res ipsa loqui-tur does not apply to this case.
I
[¶ 2] In January 2001, Haugen donated plasma at Community Bio-Resources, now doing business as BioLife Plasma Services (“BioLife”). According to Haugen, the needle, called a cannula, inserted into her vein either was…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Carolyn S. Newell v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Doing Business as Westinghouse Elevator Company, a Division of Said CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- Foerster v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1970
- Robert v. Aircraft Inv. Co., Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
- Malloy v. Commonwealth Highland Theatres, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1985
- Case Credit Corp. v. Oppegard's, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2005
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Barbie v. Minko Construction, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2009
- Kunze v. StateNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006