Cockayne v. Bristol Hospital, Inc.

Citations

• 210 Conn. App. 450

Syllabus

The plaintiffs, B and his wife, sought to recover damages from the defendant hospital for, inter alia, injuries B allegedly sustained while he was receiv- ing treatment from the defendant's employees. Over a three day period, two of the defendant's nurses, K and L, administered medication to B rectally via enema a total of three times. On the day following the final administration, a physician discovered that B's rectum had been perforated. As a result, B developed a necrotizing infection and sepsis, his health deteriorated, and he required multiple medical procedures. At trial, after the plaintiffs had rested, the defendant moved for a directed verdict, claiming that the plaintiffs had failed to present an evidentiary basis as to when the perforation occurred, which of the defendant's employees had breached the applicable standard of care, and whether the tip of the enema was capable of causing the perforation. The trial court reserved its decision on the motion and permitted the issues to be submitted to the jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and the defendant filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and to set aside the verdict. The trial court denied both motions and the defendant appealed to this court. Held: 1. The trial court properly denied the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict: this court, determining that the issue was subject to plenary review because the question of whether the evidence was sufficient to withstand the motion was one of law, concluded that the plaintiffs had met their burden of producing sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the enema was physically capable of causing the perforation, as an expert testified regarding the average length of the anal canal and the length of the tip of the enema, stating that it could reach into the rectum and that it was possible for the tip to go through the rectum and cause the perforation suffered by B; moreover, the defendant did n