The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitor.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against an anesthesiologist, based on the theory that the incorrect insertion of the central line into the patient’s carotid artery rather than jugular vein caused the plaintiff’s stroke. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on the theory of res ipsa loquitor and permitted the defendant to conduct a live demonstration of line placement on a mannequin.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that evidence was sufficient to establish that arterial cannulation of a patient during administration of anesthesia did not ordinarily happen without negligence; thus, the theory of res ipsa loquitor was appropriate. Finally, the court explained that the trial court erred by allowing the defendant to conduct a demonstration because the decision imbued the defendant with the aura of an expert and created the impression that he was incapable of negligence.

Therefore, the case is significant because it demonstrates the potential pitfalls associated with blurring the distinction between proper procedure and case specific circumstances.

^{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}