EARL Q. MORSE AND MRS. EARL Q. MORSE, APPELLANTS,
v.
DR. FREDERIC A. MORETTI AND DOCTORS HOSPITAL, INC., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a directed verdict was proper because the plaintiffs failed to produce significant evidence that the defendants' negligence caused the injury.
Plaintiffs' husband underwent eye surgery performed by defendant doctors at defendant hospital. A post-operative infection resulted in the loss of sig…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Medical Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice suit appeal from a judgment based on a directed verdict for the defendants. They say the case should have gone to the jury.
Appellants are husband and wife. While the husband was a patient in Doctors Hospital, one of the appellees, the other appellee, Dr. Moretti, removed a cataract from his right eye and after-wards performed a similar operation on his left eye. A urinary infection developed in the left eye, further surgery was necessary, and as a result the eye is sightless.
The evidence must be construed most favorably to the appellants. Goodwin v. Hertzberg, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 385, 201 F. 2d 204 (1952). So construed, it would support a finding that both appellees were negligent. But this is not enough. In a suit for personal injuries the plaintiff must prove that negligence caused the injury. Since the appellants produced no significant evidence on this point, the court did not err in directing a verdict.
The judge stated his reasons for directing a verdict, which is commendable. But we suggest that judges may well consider submitting some cases to the jury even though they would set aside a verdict for the plaintiffs. “Where the trial court has any doubt as to whether to grant the motion for a directed verdict, the better practice is for the judge not to direct a verdict but to reserve decision and let the jury bring in a verdict, * * *” 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 50.05 , The jury might return a verdict for the defendants. Furthermore, if a verdict for the plaintiff were erroneously set aside, the appellate court could merely reinstate it and a new trial would be unnecessary. See Shewmaker v. Capital Transit Co., 79 U.S.App.D.C. 102, 143 F. 2d 142 (1944); Williams v. Greenblatt, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 335, 272 F. 2d 564 (1959).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Canterbury v. William Thornton Spence & the Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
-
Reginald LAW v. Va. Stage Lines, Inc., 444 F.2d 990 (D.C. Cir. 1971)
-
Henderson v. Milobsky, 595 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1978)
Authorities Cited
- Shewmaker v. Cap. Transit Co., 143 F.2d 142 (D.C. Cir. 1944)
- Goodwin v. Hertzberg, 201 F.2d 204 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
- Williams v. Greenblatt, 272 F.2d 564 (D.C. Cir. 1959)