Legal Opinion

Cho v. Kempler

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 25, 1960No. Civ. 18321PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTobriner, J.

Respondent obtained a verdict for malpractice against appellants who contend here that the trial court prejudicially erred in both the rendition and form of an instruction on res ipsa loquitur. Since the application of the doctrine must intimately relate to the facts, we review the clinical history of the case and the expert testimony as to the involved medical procedures. We shall test the applicable cases against these facts. Finally, we analyze the form of the instruction. Our review convinces us that the trial court did not commit error.

We begin with the clinical history of the case. When…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Ybarra v. SpangardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Seneris v. HaasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of TrusteesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  4. Engelking v. CarlsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Wolfsmith v. MarshCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Perkins v. HausladenKentucky Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Bardessono v. MichelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Quin v. George Washington UniversityDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
  4. Berkey v. AndersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
  5. Ragusano v. Civic Center Hospital FoundationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API