Professional Negligence Law Reporter

A Missouri appellate court held that a veterinary student’s failure to offer expert testimony in her negligent supervision suit against a veterinarian did not warrant judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Veterinary student Jessica Wodohodsky volunteered to help vaccinate cattle on farms operated by David Hall, a friend of veterinarian David Gourley. Gourley supervised the first day of vaccinations, but when Wodohodsky arrived at the second farm for an additional day of vaccinations, she learned that the veterinarian was not there and that a ranch manager would be handling that day’s operation. As Wodohodsky attempted to vaccinate a restrained calf, an unrestrained animal jumped up and crushed her hand.

Wodohodsky sued Gourley, alleging he failed to directly supervise her during the vaccination process on the farms and failed to ensure the process was safe and did not pose a threat of unreasonable harm. After the trial court overruled the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, the jury awarded the plaintiff $5 million, finding Gourley 24 percent at fault. The defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was deemed denied after the trial court failed to issue a ruling on the motion.

Affirming, the appellate court considered the defendant’s assertion that the plaintiff did not make a submissible case for negligent supervision in that she failed to offer expert testimony establishing the applicable standard of care. The court found that the state high court has ruled that claims involving professional licensure and medical treatment do not necessarily require expert testimony. Here, the court found, the issues raised involved not complicated and intricate aspects of veterinary science, but consideration of whether the circumstances present at the second farm required Gourley’s supervision and provision of safe conditions. Citing case law, the court concluded that Gourley had failed to show that the matters at issue, including the proper placement of calves for vaccination, were so technical or complex that a fact finder could not resolve them without expert testimony.

Thus, the court concluded that the defendant’s motion was properly denied.

Citation: Wodohodsky v. Hall, 2019 WL 1070543 (Mo. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2019).

Plaintiff counsel: Joseph C. Gregg, Nicholas W. Smart, and Jeffrey M. Bauer, all of Springfield, Mo.