Parkinson v. Guidant Corp.

315 F. Supp. 2d 741 (2004)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Parkinson v. Guidant Corp.

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
315 F. Supp. 2d 741 (2004)

Facts

Rowan Parkinson (plaintiff) was injured during an angioplasty procedure when a guidewire fractured and required emergency bypass surgery to remove the fractured tip, resulting in Parkinson suffering numerous ongoing health difficulties. Parkinson sued the guidewire’s manufacturer and its parent corporation, Guidant Corp. (Guidant) (defendants), for products liability for improper manufacturing of the guidewire. Parkinson proffered evidence: that the tip separation of a guidewire is not an incident that ordinarily occurs in the absence of negligence; that the tip separation that occurred in Parkinson’s surgery was the only such occurrence in more than 650 such procedures performed by his surgeon; and that the surgeon who performed the angioplasty was not negligent in using the guidewire. Guidant moved for summary judgment and argued that Parkinson was not entitled to a res ipsa loquitur inference because it had evidence: (1) that a tip separation can occur in the absence of negligence; and (2) that there was evidence that the operating surgeon’s negligence in torquing or twisting the wire against resistance caused the guidewire to fracture.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Diamond, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 824,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 989 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership