Dorothy Herbert Ardoin et al. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. et al.
Louisiana Supreme Court
360 So.2d 1331 (1978)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
Lorrie Ardoin died during open-heart surgery when the tubing on a heart pump that should have removed blood for processing in a heart-lung machine instead pumped air into the heart, causing a fatal embolism. Ardoin’s wife, Dorothy (plaintiff), and her nine children brought a wrongful-death action in the Louisiana district court against the physician (Dr. James Bozeman) (defendant), the hospital, the hospital’s perfusionists, the tubing manufacturer (Bentley Laboratories, Inc.) (defendant) and its employee (Travis Bohannon) (collectively, Bentley) (defendants), and their insurers. Bentley and Bohannon counterclaimed against Bozeman, claiming Bozeman’s failure to check the lines was the cause of the loss. At trial, Bozeman provided expert testimony that local medical practice placed the duty of checking the tubes on the perfusionists. Bentley attempted to offer expert testimony that the standard of care required the physician to check the tubes. The court rejected the testimony because the expert witness was not from the same locality but instead offered a broader view of statewide practice. The district court reasoned that a prior Louisiana Supreme Court decision had interpreted the applicable statute to require the application of a local standard of care (the locality rule). Louisiana was a civil-law state. The jury found Bentley liable and absolved Bozeman. Bentley appealed unsuccessfully to the appellate court, relying on the prior court decision. Bentley then appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dennis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.