YBARRA V. SPANGARD case brief

YBARRA V. SPANGARD

• P underwent appendectomy; after surgery his shoulder was severely injured

• P cannot tell a story of what happened – he was unconscious during the surgery

• RIL applies

• a story could be told here by one of the defendants asserting blame against another

• court is providing incentives for stories to be told because otherwise they will all be held liable

• defendants arguing that ‘exclusive control’ element of PFC cannot be satisfied because there were multiple people in the surgical area and multiple instruments

• Supreme Court of CA has to relax the RIL doctrine to allow it to apply

• Note – Judson (rebuttal?) – p. 108 – no one left to testify to what happened, so D has no rebuttal? Is this fair?

Ybarra limits

• Black (D pool) – p. 107 – defendant surgeon implanted steel rod in P’s neck; rod fragmented unexpectedly; RIL inapplicable because D’s negligence was only one of several possibilities for P’s injury; can’t engage in conjecture and speculation as to liability; if someone is missing from D pool then P hasn’t satisfied criteria under Ybarra.

• Chin – better application of Ybarra rule than Ybarra itself; no problem of instrumentality; shifts burden to D, whereby they all narrow down the possibilities of who was at fault (unlike in Ybarra)

• Jury finds all Ds except one nurse liable