 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Walker v. Giles11/18/2005
a distinct, successive, unrelated, efficient cause of the injury." (Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Coleman, 194 Ga. App. at 511 (1). Here, the alleged misdiagnosis and mistreatment of Walker by Dr. Smith and Dr. Novak on Saturday and Sunday that contributed to her injuries was not unrelated to appellees' previous alleged failure to properly diagnose and treat Walker. Rather, the treatment provided to Walker by Dr. Smith and Dr. Novak on Saturday and Sunday was "reasonably required" because of appellees alleged failure to properly diagnose Walker's appendicitis on Thursday or Friday and have emergency surgery performed on one of those two dates. See id. Hence, the present case involves allegations of "malpractice in response to malpractice," rendering the grant of a directed verdict to appellees on the ground of intervening cause inappropriate. See id.
The trial court's finding also was erroneous because " he rule that an intervening act may break the causal connection between an original act of negligence and injury to another is not applicable if the nature of such intervening act was such that it could have reasonably been anticipated or foreseen by the original wrongdoer." (Citation omitted.) Id. at 510 (1). In Coleman, we reversed a trial court that had granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict to a physician who committed malpractice based on the conclusion that malpractice by a subsequent physician constituted an intervening cause. Id. at 510-511 (1). In reversing the trial court, we addressed the issue of foreseeability:
A negligent actor is liable not only for the injury caused by his own acts but is also liable for any additional harm resulting from the manner in which reasonably required medical services are rendered. See Restatement (2d) of Torts ยง 457 (1965). A defendant may be liable not only for all damages resulting directly from his negligent act "but also for all damage resulting from the improper or unskillful treatment of the injuries by the physician." Smith v. Hardy, 144 Ga. App. 168 (16) (240 SE2d 714) (1977).
Id. at 510 (1). Accordingly, a jury would be entitled (although not required) to conclude that it was reasonably foreseeable to the appellees that the treatment provided to Walker by Dr. Smith and Dr. Novak on Saturday and Sunday - made necessary by appellees' failure to diagnose and have Walker's appendicitis properly treated on Thursday or Friday - would be rendered in a negligent manner. See id. See also Smith, 144 Ga. App. at 174 (16).
Appellees contend that the subsequent malpractice of Dr. Smith and Dr. Novak on Saturday and Sunday was not foreseeable as a matter of law because two of appellants' experts, Dr. Williams and Dr. Evans, both stated on cross examination that it would not have been foreseeable to appellees that the general surgeons were going to be negligent. We cannot agree.
In order that a party may be liable in negligence, it is not necessary that he should have contemplated or even been able to anticipate the particular consequences which ensued, or the precise injuries sustained by the plaintiff. It is sufficient, if, by exercise of reasonable care, the defendant might have foreseen that some injury would result from his act or omission, or that consequences of a generally injurious nature might have been expected.
(Citations omitted.) Coleman, 194 Ga. App. at 510 (1). Moreover, the ultimate resolution of whether a subsequent act was foreseeable for proximate cause purposes involves a public policy determination that is best left to a jury except in rare cases. White v. Rolley, 225 Ga. App. 467, 470 (2) (484 SE2d 83) (1997); Black, 202 Ga. App. at 807 (1).
<
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|