Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

negligencetrialjury instructions
negligenceappealtrial

Related Cases

Harb v. City of Bakersfield, 233 Cal.App.4th 606, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 59, 15 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 877, 2015 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1001
View Case »
Ridge v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 117 F.3d 126, 47 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 280, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,997
View Case »
Squeo v. Norwalk Hosp. Ass’n, 316 Conn. 558, 113 A.3d 932
View Case »
Tunkl v. Regents of University of Cal., 60 Cal.2d 92, 383 P.2d 441, 32 Cal.Rptr. 33, 6 A.L.R.3d 693
View Case »
Adams v. Southern Pac. Transportation Co., 50 Cal.App.3d 37, 123 Cal.Rptr. 216
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Cromer v. Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Akron, 142 Ohio St.3d 257, 29 N.E.3d 921, 2015-Ohio-229

Facts

Seth Niles Cromer was taken to Children's Hospital after becoming very ill following treatment for an ear infection. Despite being diagnosed with shock and receiving various treatments, including oxygen therapy and intravenous fluids, Seth's condition worsened, leading to cardiac arrest and his eventual death. The parents alleged negligence on the part of the hospital staff, particularly regarding the timing of intubation, which they argued deviated from the standard of care.

This medical-negligence action arose from the death of Seth Niles Cromer at the pediatric intensive-care unit (“PICU”) of Children's Hospital Medical Center of Akron.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in including an instruction on foreseeability when instructing the jury on the standard of care for medical professionals.

We are asked to consider the role of foreseeability as an element of medical negligence.

Rule

Foreseeability is relevant to a physician's standard of care, but it is not always necessary to consider it in the context of an established physician-patient relationship. Jury instructions must accurately reflect the law and be warranted by the evidence presented.

Foreseeability is generally relevant to a determination of whether a physician has exercised reasonable care in understanding or determining the existence of a risk of harm associated with a particular course of treatment.

Analysis

The court determined that the foreseeability instruction was unnecessary because the medical professionals involved were aware of the risks associated with their treatment decisions. The court emphasized that the real issue was whether the physicians acted reasonably given the known risks, rather than whether they foresaw the specific outcomes of their actions.

The parties did not dispute that the treating physicians foresaw that there was a risk of harm associated with their choice of emergency treatment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision, concluding that the trial court's inclusion of a foreseeability instruction did not constitute reversible error and that the jury instructions as a whole were not misleading.

We therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

Who won?

Children's Hospital prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the jury instructions provided were not misleading and that the foreseeability instruction did not constitute prejudicial error.

The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision, concluding that the trial court's inclusion of a foreseeability instruction did not constitute reversible error.

You must be