Skip to main content

Ross v. Olson

Citations

  • 825 N.E.2d 890
  • 2005 Ind. App. LEXIS 637
  • 2005 WL 906083

How courts have described this case

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

  • stating “[t]o establish the applicable standard of care and to show a breach of that standard, a plaintiff [in a medical malpractice action] must generally offer expert testimony”
  • affirming the trial court's decision to refuse a res ipsa loquitur instruction because there was direct evidence of causation, i.e. that the injury was a known complication of surgery
  • “Because medicine is an inexact science, an inference of negligence will not arise simply because there is a bad result without proof of some negligent act.”
  • “Because medicine is an inexact science, an inference of negligence will not arise simply because there is a bad result without proof of some negligent act.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bailey, Sullivan, Mathias

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.