McKinney

In an action for medical malpractice, plaintiff John McKinney sought damages from defendants (surgeon Louis Nash and anesthesiologist William H. Moon) on theories of negligence in performing a surgical repair of a bilateral inguinal hernia, lack of informed consent before undertaking the surgery and breach of contract or warranty. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial court directed the jury to return a verdict on all theories in favor of defendants. Plaintiff now appeals from the judgment entered on that verdict.

In considering whether there was error in granting of the directed verdict, we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff. We must indulge in every legitimate inference which may be drawn from the evidence in plaintiff’s favor and disregard conflicting evidence to determine whether there is evidence of sufficient substantiality to support a verdict for plaintiff. (Dailey v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 741, 745 [ 87 Cal.Rptr. 376 , 470 P.2d 360 ]; Estate of Lances (1932) 216 Cal. 397, 400 [ 14 P.2d 768 ].)

Plaintiff’s evidence shows that he consulted Dr. Nash about an “enlarging” bulge in his right groin. After…