Dzurik v. Tamura

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming trial court decision where plaintiff had not established through medical testimony that vehicle accident, and not other possible factors, caused his injuries
• “the causal connection between the negligent act and the injury complained of ... must be shown. Proximate causation of an injury must be proved and is never presumed” (citations omitted)
• \the causal connection between the negligent act and the injury complained of ... must be shown. Proximate causation of an injury must be proved and is never presumed\ (citations omitted)
• “[I]t is for the trier of facts, not the medical witnesses, to make a legal determination of the question of causation.”
• “A case involving a medical issue . . . is no exception to the rule that, when there are conflicting inferences and conclusions, it is the function of the trier of facts to select the one which it considers most reasonable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).