Earl Q. Morse and Mrs. Earl Q. Morse v. Dr. Frederic A. Moretti and Doctors Hospital, Inc.

PER CURIAM: The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice suit appeal from a judgment based on a directed verdict for the defendants. They say the case should have gone to the jury. Appellants are husband and wife. While the husband was a patient in Doctors Hospital, one of the appellees, the other appellee, Dr. Moretti, removed a cataract from his right eye and after-wards performed a similar operation on his left eye. A urinary infection developed in the left eye, further surgery was necessary, and as a result the eye is sightless. The evidence must be construed most favorably to the appellants. Goodwin v. Hertzberg, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 385, 201 F.2d 204 (1952). So construed, it would support a finding that both appellees were negligent. But this is not enough. In a suit for personal injuries the plaintiff must prove that negligence caused the injury. Since the appellants produced no significant evidence on this point, the court did not err in directing a verdict. The judge stated his reasons for directing a verdict, which is commendable. But we suggest that judges may well consider submitting some cases *565 to the jury even though they would set aside a verdict for the plaintiffs. “Where the trial court has any doubt as to whether to grant the motion for a directed verdict, the better practice is for the judge not to direct a verdict but to reserve decision and let the jury bring in a verdict, * * *” 5 Moore’s Federal Practice § 50.05 [3], The jury might return a verdict for the defendants. Furthermore, if a verdict for the plaintiff were erroneously set aside, the appellate court could merely reinstate it and a new trial would be unnecessary. See Shewmaker v. Capital Transit Co., 79 U.S.App.D.C. 102, 143 F.2d 142 (1944); Williams v. Greenblatt, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 335, 272 F.2d 564 (1959). Affirmed.