Legal Opinion

Haugen v. BioLife Plasma Services

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided June 1, 2006No. 20050310PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. 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
  2. Foerster v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Robert v. Aircraft Inv. Co., Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Malloy v. Commonwealth Highland Theatres, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1985
  5. 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

  1. Barbie v. Minko Construction, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Kunze v. StateNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API