Does a modification to plaintiff's liability in a medical malpractice case alter plaintiff's claim for personal injury?

The conclusion that the court's modification here did not significantly alter plaintiff's theory of liability is further buttressed by consideration of plaintiff's submissions to the court in support of his instruction. Plaintiff cited two negligence cases as authority for his proposed instruction: Love v. Wolf (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 822, 833, 58 Cal.Rptr. 42 (Love II ) and Love v. Wolf (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 378, 38 Cal.Rptr. 183 (Love I ). In both cases the courts stated that "in the case of a drug it has been held that there is a duty to exercise reasonable care to warn of potential dangers from use even though the percentage of users who will be injured is not large. [Citation.]" (Love I, at p. 395, 38 Cal.Rptr. 183, italics added; Love II, 249 Cal.App.2d at p. 833, 58 Cal.Rptr. 42.) The trial court's alterations in fact conformed

Page 877