Johnson v. Armstrong

Summary

The court held that the appeal from the surgeon’s summary judgment order was not authorized under Rule 304(a) because res ipsa loquitur was an evidentiary doctrine and not a separate negligence claim, so the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over that order. The court nevertheless exercised supervisory authority to review the surgical technician’s summary judgment as of the date it was orally granted, concluding that the probability and control elements of res ipsa loquitur were satisfied and that no separate expert testimony concerning the technician’s standard of care was required. The court dismissed and vacated the portion concerning the surgeon, affirmed the appellate judgment as to the technician and hospital, reversed the circuit court judgment, and remanded with directions.