25 Cal.2d 486, 154 P.2d 587 (1944)
Plaintiff Ybarra consulted defendant Dr. Tilley on October 28, 1939.1 Dr. Tilley diagnosed his ailment as appendicitis.2 He made arrangements for an appendectomy to be performed by defendant Dr. Spangard at a hospital owned and managed by defendant Dr. Swift.3 Plaintiff entered the hospital, was given a hypodermic injection, slept, and later was awakened by Doctors Tilley and Spangard and wheeled into the operating room by a nurse whom he believed to be defendant Gisler, an employee of Dr. Swift.4
Defendant Dr. Reser, the anesthetist, also an employee of Dr. Swift, adjusted plaintiff for the operation, pulling his body to the head of the operating table and laying him back against two hard objects at the top of his shoulders, about an inch below his neck.5 Dr. Reser then administered the anesthetic and plaintiff lost consciousness.6 When he awoke early the following morning he was in his hospital room attended by defendant Thompson, the special nurse, and another nurse who was not made a defendant.7
Prior to the operation plaintiff had never had any pain in, or injury to, his right arm or shoulder.8 When he awakened he felt a sharp pain about half way between the neck and the point of the right shoulder.9 The pain did not cease, but spread down to the lower part of his arm.10 After his release from the hospital the condition grew worse, rendering him unable to rotate or lift his arm and causing paralysis and atrophy of the muscles around the shoulder.11 He received further treatments from Dr. Tilley until March, 1940.12 Then he returned to work, wearing his arm in a splint on the advice of Dr. Spangard.13
Plaintiff also consulted Dr. Wilfred Sterling Clark.14 Dr. Clark had X-ray pictures taken which showed an area of diminished sensation below the shoulder and atrophy and wasting away of the muscles around the shoulder.15 In the opinion of Dr. Clark, plaintiff's condition was due to trauma or injury by pressure or strain applied between his right shoulder and neck.16 Plaintiff was also examined by Dr. Fernando Garduno.17 Dr. Garduno expressed the opinion that plaintiff's injury was a paralysis of traumatic origin, not arising from pathological causes, and not systemic.18 The injury resulted in atrophy, loss of use and restriction of motion of the right arm and shoulder.19
This is an action for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been inflicted on plaintiff by defendants during the course of a surgical operation.20 The trial court entered judgments of nonsuit as to all defendants and plaintiff appealed.21
Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to an unconscious surgical patient who suffers an injury to a previously healthy part of the body when multiple defendants participated in the treatment?22
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has three conditions.23 First, the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence.24 Second, it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant.25 Third, it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.26 Where a plaintiff receives unusual injuries while unconscious and in the course of medical treatment, all those defendants who had any control over his body or the instrumentalities which might have caused the injuries may properly be called upon to meet the inference of negligence.27 They must give an explanation of their conduct.28
Yes. The injury occurred to a healthy part of the body not the subject of treatment.29 The decisions in this state make it clear that such circumstances raise the inference of negligence.30 Plaintiff was unconscious and contributed nothing to the injury.31 Defendants had control over the body and instrumentalities.32 Therefore, the doctrine applies and the nonsuit judgments were improper.33
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to these facts, rendering the nonsuit judgments improper.34
Whether a plaintiff must identify the specific defendant responsible, or the particular instrumentality that caused the injury, before res ipsa loquitur may be invoked against several defendants who had control over the patient or the instrumentalities at different times?35
A plaintiff need not identify the specific defendant responsible or the particular instrumentality that caused the injury where several defendants had control over the patient or the instrumentalities at different times.36 The doctrine places upon them the burden of initial explanation because the chief evidence of the true cause is practically accessible to them but inaccessible to the injured person.37
No. Because plaintiff was unconscious throughout the critical period, he could not identify any one actor or instrumentality responsible for his injury.38 Yet every defendant or their employees or temporary servants had control at one time or another over plaintiff's body or the agencies that might have caused the shoulder injury.39 It is enough that plaintiff showed an injury resulting from an external force applied while he lay unconscious in the hospital.40 The number of defendants and their differing functions do not preclude application of the doctrine.41
The burden shifts to defendants to explain their conduct.42
A plaintiff is not required to identify the specific defendant or particular instrumentality before res ipsa loquitur may be invoked against multiple defendants who exercised successive control.43