105.09. Res Ipsa Loquitur-Burden of Proof-Professional Negligence-Where No Claim of Contributory Negligence

105.09 Res Ipsa Loquitur--Burden of Proof--Professional Negligence--Where No Claim of Contributory Negligence [Under Count [___],] T[t]he plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following propositions: First: That [name of patient] was injured. Second: That the injury [was received from] [occurred during] a [name of instrumentality or procedure] which [was] [had been] under the defendant's [control] [management]. Third: That in the normal course of events, this injury would not have occurred if the defendant had used a reasonable standard of professional care while the [name of instrumentality or procedure] was under his [control] [management]. If you find that each of these propositions has been proved, the law permits you to infer from them that the defendant was negligent with respect to the [name of instrumentality or procedure] while it was under his [control] [management]. If you do draw such an inference, and if you further find that [name of patient]'s injury was proximately caused by that negligence, your verdict should be for the plaintiff [under this Count]. On the other hand, if you find that any of these propositions has not been proved, or if you find that the defendant used a reasonable standard of professional care for the safety of [name of patient] in his [control] [management] of the [name of instrumentality or procedure], or if you find that the defendant's negligence, if any, was not a proximate cause of [name of patient]'s injury, then your verdict should be for the defendant [under this Count]. [Whether the injury in the normal course of events would not have occurred if the defendant had used a reasonable standard of professional care while the [name of instrumentality or procedure] was under his [control] [management] must be determined from expert testimony presented in this trial. You must not attempt to determine this question from any personal knowledge you have.]