This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2014-03-10 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Res ipsa loquitur is literally translated as "the thing or the transaction speaks for itself." The doctrine res ipsa loquitur means that "where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care."[24] It is simply "a recognition of the postulate that, as a matter of common knowledge and experience, the very nature of certain types of occurrences may justify an inference of negligence on the part of the person who controls the instrumentality causing the injury in the absence of some explanation by the defendant who is charged with negligence. It is grounded in the superior logic of ordinary human experience and on the basis of such experience or common knowledge, negligence may be deduced from the mere occurrence of the accident itself. Hence, res ipsa loquitur is applied in conjunction with the doctrine of common knowledge."[25] | |||||
|
2011-06-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Ramos v. Court of Appeals [73] meanwhile illustrates that in cases where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur [74] is applicable, the requirement for expert testimony may be dispensed with. Thus, in finding that the respondent was negligent in the administration of anesthesia on the basis of the testimony of a dean of a nursing school and not of an anesthesiologist, the Court held: We do not agree with the above reasoning of the appellate court. Although witness Cruz is not an anesthesiologist, she can very well testify upon matters on which she is capable of observing such as, the statements and acts of the physician and surgeon, external appearances, and manifest conditions which are observable by any one.This is precisely allowed under the doctrine ofres ipsa loquitur where the testimony of expert witnesses is not required. It is the accepted rule that expert testimony is not necessary for the proof of negligence in non-technical matters or those of which an ordinary person may be expected to have knowledge, or where the lack of skill or want of care is so obvious as to render expert testimony unnecessary.We take judicial notice of the fact that anesthesia procedures have become so common, that even an ordinary person can tell if it was administered properly. As such, it would not be too difficult to tell if the tube was properly inserted. This kind of observation, we believe, does not require a medical degree to be acceptable. [75] | |||||
|
2010-09-15 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The CA added that the trial court erred in applying the "captain of the ship" doctrine to make respondent liable even though he was the lead surgeon. The CA noted that unlike in Ramos v. Court of Appeals,[9] relied upon by the trial court, the anesthesiologist was chosen by petitioners and no specific act of negligence was attributable to respondent. The alleged failure to perform a skin test and a tracheotomy does not constitute negligence. Tracheotomy is an emergency procedure, and its performance is a judgment call of the attending physician as it is another surgical procedure done during instances of failure of intubation. On the other hand, a skin test for a patient's possible adverse reaction to the anesthesia to be administered is the anesthesiologist's decision. The CA also noted that the same anesthesia was previously administered to Allen and he did not manifest any allergic reaction to it. Finally, unlike in the Ramos case, respondent arrived only a few minutes late for the surgery and he was able to complete the procedure within the estimated time frame of less than an hour. | |||||
|
2010-02-02 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| First, there existed between PSI and Dr. Ampil an employer-employee relationship as contemplated in the December 29, 1999 decision in Ramos v. Court of Appeals[18] that "for purposes of allocating responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship exists between hospitals and their consultants."[19] Although the Court in Ramos later issued a Resolution dated April 11, 2002[20] reversing its earlier finding on the existence of an employment relationship between hospital and doctor, a similar reversal was not warranted in the present case because the defense raised by PSI consisted of a mere general denial of control or responsibility over the actions of Dr. Ampil.[21] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase that literally means "the thing or the transaction speaks for itself." It is a maxim for the rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff's prima facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation. Where the thing that caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants; and the accident, in the ordinary course of things, would not happen if those who had management or control used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence -- in the absence of a sufficient, reasonable and logical explanation by defendant -- that the accident arose from or was caused by the defendant's want of care. This rule is grounded on the superior logic of ordinary human experience, and it is on the basis of such experience or common knowledge that negligence may be deduced from the mere occurrence of the accident itself. Hence, the rule is applied in conjunction with the doctrine of common knowledge.[8] | |||||
|
2007-01-31 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Literally, res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself." It is the rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff's prima facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation.[13] Stated differently, where the thing which caused the injury, without the fault of the injured, is under the exclusive control of the defendant and the injury is such that it should not have occurred if he, having such control used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation that the injury arose from the defendant's want of care, and the burden of proof is shifted to him to establish that he has observed due care and diligence.[14] | |||||