Bardessono v. Michels
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
TOBRINER, J.
For the reasons explained herein, we conclude that the judgment for plaintiff in this medical malpractice action should be affirmed. The trial court properly followed the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in instructing the jury that it could infer negligence from the happening of the accident alone, if it found from the testimony of physicians called as expert witnesses, common knowledge, and all the circumstances, that the injury was more probably than not the result of negligence.
1. The facts.
In June 1966, the plaintiff left his work as a radar technician in California for a…
2Cases cited59 opinions
- Ybarra v. SpangardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Seneris v. HaasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.California Supreme Court · 1952
- Lawless v. CalawayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- People v. HutchinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by93 opinions
- Tarasoff v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Cobbs v. GrantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 1981
- Toogood v. RogalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Burgess v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
88 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.