Legal Opinion

Fussell v. St. Clair

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided September 9, 1991No. 18208PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, Justice.

This is a medical malpractice ease. The issue that we find dispositive is whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury on the subject of proximate cause. We hold that in an action for medical malpractice when there is evidence of two or more causes that contributed to the damage suffered, for only one of which the doctor is responsible, the proper proximate cause instruction should instruct the jury that any negligence of the doctor was a proximate cause of the injury if it was a substantial factor in bringing about the damage. We specifically reject the inclusion of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Riddle v. ArtisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  2. Fouche v. Chrysler Motors Corp.Idaho Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Everton v. BlairIdaho Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Challis Irrigation Co. v. StateIdaho Court of Appeals · 1984
  5. Pigg v. BrockmanIdaho Supreme Court · 1963

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Myers v. Workmen's Auto InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Manning v. Twin Falls Clinic & Hospital, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Waste Management, Inc. v. South Central Bell Telephone Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1997
  4. Newberry v. MartensIdaho Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Vincent Ex Rel. Staton v. Fairbanks Memorial HospitalAlaska Supreme Court · 1993

22 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