Courts in other jurisdictions have approved instructions using similar terms. See, e.g. , Lange v. Schultz , 627 F.2d 122, 127 n 4 (8th Cir 1980) (approving instruction stating that "the doctor is not a guarantor of a good result"); Smith v. Koslow , 757 N.W.2d 677, 679, 681 (Iowa 2008), overruled on other grounds byAlcala v. Marriott Intern, Inc. , 880 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 2016) (approving instruction stating that "[t]he mere fact that a party was injured does not mean that a party was negligent"); Sennert v. McKay , 56 S.W.2d 105, 106-07 (Mo 1932) (approving instruction stating that "the defendant is not an insurer of a good result when undertaking the treatment of a case"); Miller v. Defiance Regional Med. Ctr. , No. L-06-1111, 2007 WL 4563473 (Ohio Ct App, Dec. 31, 2007) (approving instructions stating that "[t]he fact that the doctor's treatment did not bring about a cure, or fulfill the patient's expectations, does not, by itself prove that the doctor was negligent" and that "[a] physician does not guarantee that his care and treatment of a patient will always be successful, nor does a physician promise that nothing serious will result thereof"); Rooney v. Medical Center Hosp. of Vermont , 162 Vt. 513, 522, 649 A.2d 756, 761 (Vt 1994) (approving instruction stating that a doctor does not "guarantee a good result"); Christensen v. Munsen , 123 Wash 2d 234, 247-48, 867 P.2d 626, 633 (1994) (approving instruction stating that "[a]n ophthalmologist does not guarantee the results of his or her care and treatment" and that "[a] poor medical result is not, in itself, evidence of negligence"); Nowatske v. Osterloh , 198 Wis 2d 419, 443-44, 543 N.W.2d 265, 274 (1996), abrogated on other grounds byNommensen v. American Continental Ins. Co. , 246 Wis 2d 132, 6