C. R. BARD, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MARLENE MASON, A SINGLE WOMAN, FORMERLY MARLENE CLARK, AND TRUSTEES OF MEASE HOSPITAL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Affirmed judgment against catheter manufacturer where jury could infer defective manufacture from evidence that catheter was severed and traveled to heart, rejecting manufacturer's argument that verdict rested on impermissible inference upon inference.
A jury verdict finding defective manufacture of a catheter is not based on an impermissible inference upon inference when direct evidence excludes all other possibilities.
[1] A verdict based on inference of product defect is not impermissibly based on inference upon inference when direct evidence excludes all other possible causes.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This is a beguiling argument, but it is not an 'inference upon an inference' as that misunderstood phrase is used in the cases.”
Court rejecting manufacturer's argument that verdict rested on double inference
An intravenous catheter manufactured by Bard was inserted into plaintiff's vein, became severed, and part of it traveled to the heart requiring surger…
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 Defective Manufacture cases and more on FLexlaw
An intravenous catheter inserted into the vein of plaintiff was severed somehow and part of it traveled through the vein to the heart, necessitating complex surgery. Bard manufactured the catheter and contends that the verdict against it is founded on an inference on an inference.
There was testimony that a small percentage of Bard’s catheters contained burrs which could result in the severance of the inserted portion even though it was properly inserted. The jury’s verdict depends on finding that this happened in this instance. Bard says that this finding depends upon inference that the particular catheter— both ends of which were “routinely” discarded by the two hospitals involved — was faulty and a further inference that the portion which traveled to the heart was severed in this manner. This is a beguiling argument, but it is not an “inference upon an inference” as that misunderstood phrase is used in the cases. Of course a finding that the catheter was severed as a consequence of faulty manufacture is based on an inference. There is no direct proof of this *472fact. But all of the other possibilities are excluded by direct evidence which the jury could — and obviously did — believe. This leaves the inference of faulty manufacture sufficiently supported. See Tillery v. Standard Sand and Silica Co., Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 842; Annotation, 5 A.L.R. 3d 100.
Affirmed.
PIERCE, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brooks v. Plant, 296 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…been driving with impaired faculties, Brooks would not have-been thrown from his precarious position. Thus, we conclude that genuine issues of material fact exist. Reversed. HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur. . Bard, Inc. v. Mason, Fla.App.2d 1971, 247 So. 2d 471. . American Electric Co. v. Seaboard Airline Railway, 1937, 129 Fla. 518, 177 So. 294; Anderson v. Sarasota County Public Hospital Board, Fla.App.2d 1968, 214 So. 2d 655; Frank v. Lurie, Fla.App.2d 1963, 157 So. 2d 431. . Holman v. Ford Motor Co.,…
-
Camp v. Gulf Cntys. GAS Co., 265 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)…d reason [*732] ably, in all the circumstances, toward Randall Camp.6 The argument that a judgment for plaintiff would necessarily involve a pyramiding of inferences is without merit for reasons explained in C. R. Bard, Inc. v. Mason, Fla.App.1971, 247 So. 2d 471. Reversed and remanded. LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur. . Clark, C. J., dissenting in Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 2d Cir. 1957, 245 F. 2d 175, 180, rev’d, adopting Judge Clark’s view, by a unanimous Supreme Court, 195…
-
C. R. Bard, Inc. v. Mason, 251 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1971)…Certiorari denied. 247 So. 2d 471. ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tillery v. Standard Sand & Silica Co., 226 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)