Chin v. St. Barnabas Medical Center
New Jersey Supreme Court
734 A.2d 778 (1999)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Chin (plaintiff) died from a massive embolism during a diagnostic hysteroscopy when the apparatus was incorrectly hooked up to the wrong tube and nitrogen was allowed to enter Chin’s uterus and resulted in a fatal embolism. Chin sued the doctor who performed the surgery, the manufacturer of the hysteroscope, the nurses who attended the procedure, and the hospital where the surgery was performed. At trial, several theories were presented regarding which tube was wrongly attached, and conflicting testimony was presented regarding which party or parties incorrectly hooked up the apparatus, but no party argued that manufacturer was liable for Chin’s death. At the close of the evidence, the trial court directed verdict for the manufacturer, and the jury returned a verdict for Chin, apportioning liability against the several remaining defendants. The court then granted the hospital and the nurses’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and entered judgment against the physician who appealed. The appellate court reversed and remanded. Appeals and cross-appeals to the state’s highest court were filed. In question was whether the burden of proof had been properly shifted to the defendants and whether the evidence supported the jury’s allocation of fault. The appellate court reversed and remanded.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Handler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
