3 Cal. 3d 780 - Bardessono v. Michels’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 197 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 215 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 17 Cal. 3d 425 - Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976), 8 Cal. 3d 229 - Cobbs v. Grant (1972)
12 federal appellate · 197 state decisions — followed in 10 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 25 Cal. 2d 486 - Ybarra v. Spangard · 71 Cal. 2d 342 - People v. Hutchinson · 45 Cal. 2d 811 - Seneris v. Haas · 39 Cal. 2d 436 - Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. · 24 Cal. 2d 81 - Lawless v. Calaway
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 215 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The courts require only that physicians and surgeons exercise in diagnosis and treatment that reasonable degree of skill, knowledge, and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of the medical profession under similar circumstances. [Citations.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The record in this case contains substantial evidence that plaintiff's tendonitis condition was not common place; that injections of cortisone and a local anesthetic (xylocaine) were the normal, common treatment for this condition, and that untoward results were extremely rare." "This case, therefore, involves a relatively simple, rather than complex, procedure in which the physician injected a fluid into the body. The jury could accordingly rely upon its common knowledge in determining whether the accident was of a kind that would ordinarily not have occurred in the absence of someone's negligence. Thus, the trial court properly instructed the jury that if it found from expert testimony, common knowledge, and all the circumstances that the injury was more probable than not the result of negligence, it could infer negligence from the happening of the accident alone."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Martin v. Stratton“"lilt has been held that '{nlegligence of a chiropractor in failing to take due care to avoid injury to undiseased parts of his patient's body may be proven without resorting to expert testimony.' Morrison v. Lane (1935), 10 Cal.App.2d 634, 635 , 52 P.2d 530 . In such cases 'courts have found sufficient common knowledge and observation among laymen, regardless of expert testimony, to indicate 'that the consequences of the professional treatment were not such as ordinarily would have followed if due care had been exercised' so as to raise an inference of negligence. Bardessono v. Michels (1970), 3 Cal.3d 780, 789 , 91 Cal.Rptr. 760 , 478 P.2d 480 ." Id. 183 Cal.Rptr. at 497 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stumph v. Foster
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.