Conners v. University Associates in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Inc., 4 F.3d 123 (1993) p103.

• P underwent surgery in an attempt to become pregnant.
• After surgery she lost all function in her left leg.
• P’s theory was a retractor used to keep the incision open had impinged on a nerve leading to her leg.
• Experts testified that nerve injuries in operations of this type were sometimes unavoidable complications not attributable to negligence.

Diversity action brought by plaintiff and her husband. At first trial court refused to grant res ipsa loquitur. After a defense verdict, the judge granted a new trial on the ground that he had erred in refusing to charge res ipsa. At the close of the second trial the jury returned a verdict for P in the amount of $800,000. D moved for a new trial arguing res ipsa instruction was in error. That motion was denied.

Did the district court err in instructing the jury on res ipsa loquitur where 1) expert testimony on causation was given; and 2) Connors introduced direct evidence on the cause of the injury?

A res ipsa loquitur instruction to the jury was necessary to allow the jury to make the inference of finding negligence.

P can utilize expert testimony to bridge gap between the jury’s common knowledge and the uncommon knowledge of experts. A res ipsa loquitur instruction is given in order to allow a plaintiff with no ability to show actual negligence the opportunity to prove negligence through inference.

res ipsa loquitur has 3 conditions:

1. accident does not ordinarily occur in the absence of someone’s negligence
2. caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant
3. it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of P