## Facts

- Leo V. Barnes suffered a left-eye injury when a piece of steel entered the eyeball.
- Barnes was treated by Dr. D. O. Bovenmyer, an ophthalmologist, who did not detect the foreign body for approximately 36–48 hours.
- After discovering the foreign body, Dr. Bovenmyer advised Barnes to promptly go to Iowa City for removal, which Barnes did.
- Plaintiff’s evidence included expert testimony indicating the foreign body should have been detected sooner under proper practice.
- Other medical testimony stated the eye became infected when the steel entered, and earlier removal likely would not have prevented loss of the eye.
- Barnes alleged negligent delay in diagnosis and treatment caused the eventual loss of his eye.

## Issues

1. Whether a general ruling sustaining a directed-verdict motion with multiple grounds violates Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 118’s requirement of separate rulings on each ground.
2. Whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of (a) negligence and (b) proximate causation to submit the malpractice claim to the jury.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court held the trial court’s general ruling on the multi-ground motion failed to comply with Rule 118.
- The Court treated contributory negligence as abandoned on appeal and, in any event, found the record would not support contributory negligence as a matter of law.
- Even construing plaintiff’s evidence most favorably to him, the Court concluded the proof failed to show that any delay by defendant probably caused the loss of the eye.
- The directed verdict for defendant was upheld because of insufficient evidence on proximate cause.

## Legal Principles

- Iowa R. Civ. P. 118 requires separate rulings on separate grounds in a motion; a trial court should not sustain such a motion generally.
- On review of a directed verdict, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
- In medical malpractice, proof of breach of the standard of care is insufficient without competent expert evidence that the breach was a probable (more likely than not) proximate cause of the injury.
- Where expert testimony indicates the adverse outcome would likely have occurred regardless of earlier proper treatment, causation is not established for jury submission.

## Conclusion

Although the trial court erred by sustaining a multi-ground directed-verdict motion without separate rulings, the plaintiff’s malpractice claim failed because the evidence did not support a finding that any diagnostic delay probably caused the loss of the eye, so judgment for the defendant was upheld.


Barnes v. Bovenmyer, 255 Iowa 220, 122 N.W.2d 312 (Iowa 1963)