Cited by

Id.; see Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 801 (1996).

1996) (“We have held that expert medical testimony based on ‘could,’ ‘may,’ or ‘possibly’ lacks the definiteness required to meet the claimant's burden to prove causation.”); cf. Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 802 (1996) (quantum of expert testimony necessary to survive a motion for directed verdict must be enough to conclude that causal link “probably” existed).

at 4), and we will not endeavor “to reweigh the evidence and set aside the jury verdict merely because the jury could have drawn different inferences or conclusions or because we feel that other results are more reasonable,” Bronson v. Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 804 (1996) (quotation and brackets omitted).

Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 806 (1996).

Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 801 (1996).

To make out a prima facie case of medical negligence, a plaintiff must introduce, by expert testimony, “evidence sufficient to warrant a reasonable juror’s conclusion that the causal link between the negligence and the injury probably existed.” Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 801 (1996); see RSA 507-E:2, 1(c).

Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 806 (1996).

Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 800 (1996).

A party is entitled to a directed verdict only when the “sole reasonable inference that may be drawn from the evidence, which must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is so overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that no contrary verdict *414 could stand.” Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 800 (1996) (quotation omitted).

Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 801 (1996); see Brookline School Dist.

Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 806 (1996).

Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 801 (1996).

A motion for directed verdict “should be granted only when the sole reasonable inference that may be drawn from the.evidence, which must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is so overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that no contrary verdict could stand.” Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 800 (1996) (quotation omitted).

A motion for a directed verdict “should be granted only when the sole reasonable inference that may be drawn from the evidence, which must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is so overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that no contrary verdict could stand.” Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 800 (1996).

Leighton, 27 N.H. at 475; see also Bronson v. Hitchcock, 140 N.H. 798, 801 (1996).

that the causal link probably existed.” Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 802 (1996) (quotation omitted).

The defendants next argue that we rejected the loss of opportunity doctrine in Pillsbury-Flood v. Portsmouth Hospital, 128 N.H. 299 (1986), and Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798 (1996).

A motion for directed verdict “should be granted only when the sole reasonable inference that may be drawn from the evidence, which must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is so overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that no contrary verdict could stand.” Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 800, 677 A.2d 665, 667-68 (1996) (quotation omitted).

We will not reverse the trial court’s ruling unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 809, 677 A.2d 665, 672 (1996) (citation omitted).

We will not reverse the trial court’s ruling unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 809, 677 A.2d 665, 672 (1996) (citation omitted).

We will not reverse the trial court’s ruling unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 809.

“Though they are made at different points in a trial, motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict are essentially the same, and they are governed by identical standards.” Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 800, 677 A.2d 665, 667 (1996) (quotation, brackets, and ellipses omitted).

“The concept of proximate cause includes both the cause-in-fact and the legal cause of injury.” Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 801, 677 A.2d 665, 668 (1996).

An exception to this requirement may exist in cases where the evidence rests on “nontechnical matters or those of which an ordinary person may be expected to have knowledge.” Mehigan v. Sheehan, 94 N.H. 274, 275-76, 51 A.2d 632, 633 (1947) (quotation omitted); see also Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 810, 677 A.2d 665, 673 (1996) (Horton, J., dissenting); Beane v. Perley, 99 N.H. 309, 310, 109 A.2d 848, 849 (1954).

Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 800, 677 A.2d 665, 667-68 (1996).

An actor’s negligent conduct is a proximate cause if it is “a substantial factor in bringing about the harm,” Maxfield v. Maxfield, 102 N.H. 101, 105, 151 A.2d 226, 230 (1959) (quotation omitted), and if the harm would not have occurred without that conduct, see Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 801, 677 A.2d 665, *355 668 (1996).

id.; cf. e.g., Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 802-03, 677 A.2d 665, 669 (1996) (showing of “reasonable probability” does not require showing of “mathematical certainty”).

“Such motions should be granted only when the sole reasonable inference that may be drawn from the evidence, which must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is so overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that no contrary verdict could stand.” Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic, 140 N.H. 798, 800, 677 A.2d 665, 667-68 (1996) (quotation omitted).