The Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur and its Applicability in Medical Malpractice Cases in the U.S.: Focusing on Judicial Inconsistency in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Medical malpractice cases are a particular type of negligence cases in which medical professionals and/or institutions are held liable for having engaged in conduct falling below the reasonable standard of care. Because it is often extremely difficult for plaintiffs to have access to relevant information and materials in support of their medical negligence claims, most jurisdictions have allowed the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur - which means, literally “the thing speaks for itself,” allowing permissible inferences of negligence from circumstantial evidence surrounding the plaintiff’s injuries – to apply as long as the plaintiff sufficiently satisfies the necessary elements to invoke the doctrine, in an effort to relax the rigid requirements of the plaintiff’s burden of proof. This article examines the judicial inconsistency on the law of application of res ipsa loquitur in medical negligence cases created by the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s 2020 decision in the case of Lageman v. Zepp, pending the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s review of the Superior Court’s decision. The Supreme Court should take into consideration the dissenting opinion in Lagemen as well as other relevant cases to finally clarify what the law should be on whether to permit res ipsa instructions in medical malpractice cases where the plaintiffs produce direct evidence of negligence on part of the defendant medical professionals. The judicial efforts to somehow alleviate the plaintiffs’ seemingly onerous burden in light of limited access to the relevant and material information should not result in unintended judicial overreaching by inadvertently providing an unfair advantage to the plaintiffs.