This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

After a surgery to help her become pregnant, Connors (P) lost all function in her left leg. P's experts operated on a theory that the retractor used to keep the incision open had impinged on a nerve leading to P's left leg. Experts on both sides agreed that the retractor was used correctly but disagreed over whether the injury could have occurred even if defendant doctors (D) had been careful with the retractor. Defense testified that P's nerve was abnormally positioned. The first trial judge refused to charge the jury with res ipsa loquitur. After a verdict for D, the judge granted a new trial on grounds that he erred in not granting a res ipsa loquitur charge. D moved for a new trial arguing that res ipsa loquitur charge was an error. After the second trial and a verdict for P, D appealed on the following issues (1) that expert testimony on causation was given, (2) P introduced direct evidence on the cause of the injury and that when such evidence is introduced it would be error for the court to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.