Rush v. Blanchard

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming jury verdict for parents and child in medical malpractice action brought against physician who negligently performed an amniocentesis and harmed infant while he was in the womb, and injured infant was later born alive
• providing the “decision to grant a new trial is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and ordinarily will not be disturbed on appeal,” and affirming the trial court’s denial of a new trial absolute because the circuit court did not abuse its discretion
• ''[Gjreat deference is given to the trial judge, especially in the area of intangible elements of damages....”
• also, to grant new trial absolute, verdict must be so grossly excessive as to shock the conscience and be the result of caprice, passion, or improper motive
• Proof of proximate cause \requires proof of both causation in fact and legal cause. Causation in fact is proved by establishing the injury would not have occurred `but for' the defendant's negligence.\
• Proof of proximate cause “requires proof of both causation in fact and legal cause. Causation in fact is proved by establishing the injury would not have occurred ‘but for’ the defendant’s negligence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).