[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
June 22, 1957


Author Affiliations

School of Law University of Southern California 3518 University Ave. Los Angeles 7.

JAMA. 1957;164(8):915-916. doi:10.1001/jama.1957.02980080085021

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor:—  I wish to express a few opinions concerning the current series of articles in the section Medicine and the Law. On the whole the topics are well chosen and presented. To date Mr. Morris' article on res ipsa loquitur (The Journal, March 23, page 1055) is one of the clearest explanations of this problem available in any medical periodical. It is extremely difficult indeed to translate complicated legal theory into understandable lay terms. Mr. Morris has succeeded. His scope is complete, thorough, and pointed. The arguments are well founded. His advisement of better medical cooperation is especially well taken, for this is certainly one positive way to counter the courts' reasons for applying such a "rule of sympathy."Generally the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is fair to both doctor and patient when the facts of the particular case properly raise an inference of negligence. Yet, since

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview