Pag opera di ba?

It is very obvious na pagninggamit kag longer nga

*** and mutouch siya sa teeth or sa molar tooth it will really cause pain
so that is obvious but there are cases na dili sure unsai cause sa
death, katong isa ang cause kno sa death is negligence but it is
actuallt reaction lang sa body sa bata with respect to the operation. So
it is not obvious. It is not the kind of accident nga makaingon ang
common person who has no knowledge in medical science, maka
ingon sya na "hala negligent sya", but if a stranger in the streets na
wala kibaw unsai medical science nya muingon na "ay sala gyud nas
doctor" that is Res Ipsa Loquitur.

So you employ the tests of common math. Now, if it needs the specific
knowledge of medical science or of the doctors, that is not res ipsa
loquitur. Especially pag mu employ na silag such words that we dont
understand. Like reflex, blood clotting etc. A layman does not know all
of these things.

So, you only apply that if obvious kaayu nga naai sayup. But if
problema lang because gamay ang dosage nga g apply, either wala
sya completely natahi, those call for testimonies of medical experts
therefore dispensing with res ipsa loquitur.

What else? Remember ha dili sya automatic guilt or automatic

negligence it is just a spring board for the plaintiff to prove that there
was a a breach of duty that's an allegation but it still has to be proven.

The fact that the accident rarely occurs does not mean res ipsa
loquitur applies. Naa man isa ka case na rare ra kno tong radicardia
vago vagal reflex kanang less lang mu pump ug oxygen ang imong
heart so rare na sya mahitabo during surgical operations but just
because it is rare does not mean it is common. It does not make
sense right? But that is how it is because you apply the common
knowledge tests. the doctrine of common knowledge.

You take a look at the common experience of man kind we will never
know whether there was medical malpractice if the facts pertained
those related to purely medical stuff. But if it is as easy as looking at it
and say "bitaw sayop man gyud na under the circumstances" that is
what your Res Ipsa Loquitur mean.

Mao na ang reason for the general rule on the necessity of expert
testimony hinges on the fact that there are certain areas in the field of
medicine that are beyond common experience. Duha man ni sya,
katong si impurferated(?) anus, nga dili sure unsai reason sa iyahang
death because nag over compensate lang or nag less perform iyang
heart in pumping the necessary blood and kadtong isa si borromeo
nga dili sure gyud unsai cause sa death is it the failure to completely
close kay di man to tinood right because kung .5mm daw kno
imposible man kaha na. Ingon si doctor nga kung in fact .5mm daghan
na unta kaayung dugo ning gawas no? but it was the failure to clot dili
mu coagulate imohang blood. So if ing ana na gani nga mga butang
nga dili gyud ta kabalo unsaon and it calls for medical experts, res
ipsa loquitor should not apply. And for good reasons, the common
man cannot tetstify as to these matters. And it is unfair for someone
who has been practicing medicine, for example katong
anesthesiologist in one specific case.

What else? So these are the tests, these were in the case of Rosit v
Davao Doctors who figured a vehicular accident, an average man of
common intelligence, that striking a tooth with any foreign object is
going to create pain. You dont need medical expert for that.
The operation which resulted in the screw hitting his molar was
performed by a doctor... That is the first element diba? second
requisite ni sya, the exclusive control element. The third one is there
was even an allegation that maybe just maybe ning sakit iyang ngipon
tungod sa lung disease. there could be no contributory negligence on
his part. So, all the elements have been satisfied and therefore you
apply res ipsa loquitor and therefore you dispense with direct
testimony or testimony of medical experts. It does not mean that the
doctor is automatically negligent. You still have to go through the
process of proving that he was negligent under the circumstances or
there was no contributory negligence.
On a final note, nasuko ang SC actually because of the failure to
comply with the doctrine of informed consent which is di ba? like you
operated using those large screws only because you thought he
cannot afford the smaller ones. So it is really important to inform your
client about the procedure, probability of success, what are the side
effects, etc. maybe di sya mupadayon sa operation but that is fine, it is
his body, it is his life.

Res Ipsa Loquitur is a rule of presumption.

You do not presume when there is an evidence to the contrary.
because there is an available evidence, that is where we, diha na
dayun ang ano ang way of the negligence of the parties di ba?
because there is a standard you can use to determine whether or not
somebody else is negligent. You only employ res ipsa loquitur that is
why it is under the heading on presumed negligence because you
presume negligence muna just so the plaintiff can prove his claim or
the defendant can disprove his alleged negligence. It is really
important that there is no direct evidence, because if there is, then the
court has a basis to rule whether or not negligence was indeed
present.