LePrince v. McLeod, 64-431
| Decision Date | 02 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 64-431,64-431 |
| Citation | 171 So.2d 189 |
| Parties | Virginia E. LePRINCE and Achille E. LePrince, Appellants, v. Norman McLEOD, M.D., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carr & Warren, Miami, for appellants.
Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Samuel J. Powers, Jr., and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.
The plaintiffs, in a medical malpractice suit, appeal from a judgment n. o. v. for the defendant-doctor following a jury verdict of $3,050 in favor of the plaintiffs.
The defendant performed a hysterectomy upon Mrs. LePrince and during the course of such operation her left ureters (there were two on the left side) were injured requiring a second operation to correct that condition. The medicial testimony did not pinpoint the cause of these damaged ureters 1 but, attributed it variously to: (1) a stitch being passed through them during the operation; (2) being crushed, angulated or kinked by a surgical clamp thereby causing occlusion; (3) becoming degenerated because of a disturbance of the blood supply; (4) swelling or inflammation as a result of the surgery; (5) the operation itself may cause a diminishment in the blood supply to the ureter which would result in an obstruction, causing a fistula. 2
Of the five possible causes of the damaged ureters only two could be attributed to any failure to exercise due care during the operation. On the basis of the record before us, it is our opinion that this case is controlled by Lane v. White, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 14, wherein it was held that the plaintiff's proof failed because there were several possible causes of the injury, and the evidence did not eliminate the nonnegligent causes.
In the instant case, the same is true. The plaintiffs did not establish that the negligent causes were the only possible reasons for the injury. Failing this, it would be inviting the jury to engage in a guessing game to submit the case to them. 3 The trial judge was eminently correct in granting the defendant's motion for judgment n. o. v., and his action is affirmed.
Affirmed.
1 The ureters were not in any way involved in the hysterectomy, but they are located in the same general vicinity although they are not visible at all times to the surgeon during this type of operation.
2 Mrs. LePrince had extra ureters, a congenital condition existing in a small percentage of women, causing them to be closer to the cervix (site of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wale v. Barnes
...court's directed verdict in favor of the defendants in a malpractice case. Such decision in expressly relying upon Le Prince v. McLeod, 171 So.2d 189 (Fla.App.3d 1965); and Lane v. White, 167 So.2d 14 (Fla.App.3d 1964), creates a Misapplication of law as a basis for our review inasmuch as t......
-
Maltempo v. Cuthbert
...must establish that his negligence was the only possible cause for the injury in order to reach the jury, relying on LePrince v. McLeod, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 189, and Lane v. White, Fla.App.1964,167 So.2d 14. In those cases, however, there were numerous possible causes for the injury com......
-
Hernandez v. Clinica Pasteur, Inc., 73--31
...the issue of proximate cause to the jury. The decisions relied upon are Lane v. White, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 14, and LePrince v. McLeod, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 189. In Lane, the first cited opinion, the plaintiff alleged malpractice in that he was not bound so that he could not thrash ab......
-
Wale v. Barnes, 71-242
...of were caused by that negligence of defendants. It is our opinion that this case is governed by the rules stated in Le Prince v. McLeod, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 189 and Lane v. White, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 14, and therefore the trial court was correct in granting a directed verdict for t......