SOUTH FLORIDA HOSPITAL CORPORATION, A FLORIDA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, D/B/A HIALEAH HOSPITAL, APPELLANT
v.
NAOMI MCCREA AND EMORY MCCREA, HER HUSBAND, 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.
This case involves a hospital appealing judgments awarded to patients based on jury verdicts. The hospital argued that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should not have been applied because the patients presented evidence of specific negligence. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision.
No, the lower court did not err in applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This jurisdiction allows for the application of res ipsa loquitur even when specific acts of negligence are also alleged and proven.
“The defendant contends that the lower court erred in applying-the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur because the plaintiffs introduced evidence of specific negligence on the part of the defendant.”
This quote states the primary legal argument raised by the appellant hospital.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA patient and her husband sued a hospital for damages due to injuries the patient sustained while under the hospital's care. The jury returned verdict…
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 Specific Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff and her husband brought an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by her while a patient at the defendant institution. From judgments in favor of the plaintiffs, pursuant to jury verdicts, the defendant appealed.
The defendant contends that the lower court erred in applying-the doctrine of res *394ipsa loquitur because the plaintiffs introduced evidence of specific negligence on the part of the defendant. West Coast Hospital Ass’n v. Webb, Fla., 52 So.2d 803; Roth v. Dade County, Fla., 71 So.2d 169. That this jurisdiction has not aligned itself with those jurisdictions so holding (33 A.L. R.2d 800) is evident from the decision in McKinney Supply Company v. Orovitz, Fla., 96 So.2d 209; 33 A.L.R.2d 795.
Defendant’s second point has been carefully examined and found to be without merit.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., HORTON, J., and WARREN, LAMAR, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S. Fla. Hosp. Corp. v. McCREA, 118 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1960)…WILLIS, BEN C., Circuit Judge. This case is before us on a petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, 112 So. 2d 393, on the ground that there is a direct conflict in that decision with decisions of this Court and of the Second District Court of Appeal on the same point of law. A prima facie showing was made as to such conflict and the writ was issued.1 The petit…1 / 2
-
Dayton Tire & Rubber Co. v. Davis, 348 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…McKinney Supply Co. v. Orovitz, 96 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1957). The Court later held the West Coast Hospital and Roth statements were obiter dicta and, by discharging certio-rari, let stand the conflicting decision in South Florida Hosp. Corp. v. McCrea, 112 So. 2d 393 (Fla.3d DCA 1959), cert. dism., 118 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1960). Reliance on both res ipsa and specific proof of negligence has since become commonplace. National Airlines, Inc. v. Fleming, 141 So. 2d 343 (Fla.lst DCA 1962); Kulczynski v. Harrington, 207 S…
-
Kulczynski v. Harrington, 207 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…c., Fla.1950, 48 So. 2d 82), and the presentation by plaintiff of specific evidence of negligence did not preclude its use. McKinney Supply Company v. Orovitz, Fla.1957, 96 So. 2d 209, 211; South Florida Hospital Corporation v. McCrea, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 393. The rejection by the trial judge of the issue of consent, and his refusal to charge thereon were proper where it was shown the driver had been given custody of the truck and was authorized by the defendant to use it, although the defendant contende…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- W. Coast Hosp. Ass'n v. Webb, 52 So.2d 803 (Fla. 1951)
- McKINNEY Supply Co. v. Orovitz, 96 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1957)
- Roth v. Dade Cnty., 71 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1954)