Washington v. Washington Hospital Center

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling, in case where settling defendant had not admitted liability, that nonsettling defendant’s failure to keep issue of settling defendant’s negligence in case through cross-claim or special jury verdict request precludes application of pro rata credit
• “The purpose of expert opinion testimony is to avoid jury findings based on mere speculation or 20 conjecture.”
• expert testimony usually required to establish each of the elements except where the proof is so obvious as to lie within the ken of the average lay juror
• plaintiff might have litigated differently had there been a request for pro rata credit
• expert testimony is usually required to establish each element of medical malpractice claim
• “[A] plaintiff facing possible application of a Martello credit should have fair notice that the non-settling defendant plans to seek a pro rata reduction of the verdict on the ground that his settling counterparts were negligent, and an opportunity to build a rebuttal case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).