Tice v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably 128 N.C. App. 570 - Edwards v. West (1998), 952 So. 2d 177 - Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. GILMORE MEM. HOSP. (2007)
24 state decisions
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 Dickinson v. Pake · Hunt v. Bradshaw · Young v. Anchor Co. · Pendergraft v. Royster · Mitchell v. Saunders
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Uniformly, in this and other courts, res ipsa loquitur has been applied to instances where foreign bodies, such as sponges..., are introduced into the patient’s body during surgical operations and left there. [[Image here]] . . . [T]he well-settled law in this jurisdiction is and has been that a surgeon is under a duty to remove all harmful and unnecessary foreign objects at the completion of the operation. Thus the presence of a foreign object raises an inference of a lack of due care. When a surgeon relies upon nurses or other attendants for accuracy in the removal of sponges from the body of his patient, he does so at his peril.... [[Image here]] . . . The application of res ipsa loquitur allows the issue of whether [the] defendant has complied with the statutory standard to be submitted to the jury for its determination. Although the application of the doctrine requires the submission of the issue to the jury, the burden remains upon the plaintiff to satisfy the jury that the defendant has failed to comply with the statutory standard. [The defendant's evidence that he complied with the statutory standard does not remove the case from the jury’s determination. As the trier of the facts, the jury remains free to accept or reject the testimony of [the] defendant’s witnesses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nicholson v. Thom
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.