affirming a directed verdict in favor of the defendant in a dental malpractice action where “there was no evidence on which the jury could do more than speculate that * * * negligence caused plaintiff's injury”
Summary of this case from Smith v. Providence Health & Services-OregonDecember 20, 1983.
affirming a directed verdict in favor of the defendant in a dental malpractice action where “there was no evidence on which the jury could do more than speculate that * * * negligence caused plaintiff's injury”
Summary of this case from Smith v. Providence Health & Services-Oregonaffirming directed verdict where the plaintiff offered no expert opinion that negligently administered dental injection had caused her nerve damage and there was at least one alternative explanation for causation of the plaintiff's injury
Summary of this case from Hudjohn v. S&G Machinery Co.Full title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW ALLOWED AND DENIED
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Dec 20, 1983
James v. Carnation Co., 278 Or. 65, 69, 562 P.2d 1192 (1977). Relying on Myers v. Dunscombe, 64 Or. App. 722,…
Timm and Timm" In reaching that conclusion, the trial court relied on our line of decisions holding that, "[i]n…