TORTS

When a plaintiff files a tort claim with the Attorney General at any time within the two-year period provided by § 43.1204, the running of the two-year period is stayed and the statute is tolled for such time as the Attorney General takes to act upon the claim or until such time as the claim is denied by default. Bradcock v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 42 (1997).

Where a motor vehicle is driven by unlicensed and inexperienced minor and the vehicle was entrusted to him by a parent, both are jointly and severally liable to a third party whose injuries are proximately caused by the negligence of the minor in operating the vehicle and his parent in negligently entrusting the same to him. Elisara v. Togiola, 1 A.S.R.3d 75 (1997).

To establish a cause of action for negligence a party must prove duty, breach, causation, and damages. Lang v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 148 (1997).

In malpractice actions, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the recognized standard of medical care in the community, a lack of reasonable and ordinary care by the medical professional, and that the medical professional's negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. Lang v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 148 (1997).

Injury, death, or an otherwise unsuccessful result of treatment does not shift the burden of proof in a malpractice action. Lang v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 148 (1997).

Injury, death, or an otherwise unsuccessful result of treatment does not give rise to an inference of negligence in a malpractice action. Lang v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 148 (1997).

The duty of a medical professional is to act with the standard of care ordinarily exercised under the same or similar circumstances by members of the profession in the same or similar communities. Lang v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 148 (1997).

In a malpractice action, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the recognized standard of care. Lang v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 148 (1997).

Mere argument, or slight indication, as to the applicable standard of care for a medical professional is not sufficient. Specific evidence should be presented. Lang v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 148 (1997).

Unless proved otherwise, a physician is presumed to have carefully and skillfully treated his patient. Lang v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 148 (1997).

Res ipsa loquitur is applicable when (1) the event is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; (2) it was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; (3) it was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff. Lang v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 148 (1997).

Res ipsa loquitur applies to the consequences of professional treatment if such consequences would not ordinarily occur in the absence of the allegedly culpable conduct. Lang v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 148 (1997).

The mere fact that an injury occurred is not evidence of negligence. Lang v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 148 (1997).

Plaintiff not entitled to the permissive inference of negligence that res ipsa loquitur affords without demonstrating that the medical consequences she suffered would not have otherwise occurred. Lang v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 148 (1997).

Where res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable, plaintiffs must produce some medical proof of causation. Lang v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 148 (1997).

The Defendant is entitled to judgment in its favor where the trier of fact can do no more than speculate as to which of several possible causes was the actual cause of the injury in question. Lang v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 148 (1997).