In May 2009, Bryan Lyles was admitted to the LSU Health Sciences Center and underwent an anterior corpectomy and discectomy surgery. During the procedure, Lyles’s C5 vertebrae was replaced with a Verte-Stack implant. Additionally, an Atlantis Plate was inserted to hold the Verte-Stack in place and promote its union with the C4 and C6 vertebrae. Lyles was discharged the day after the operation after having several x-ray images taken. About a week later, Lyles returned to the hospital, complaining that the condition he had undergone the surgery for had not abated. Additional images of Lyles’s spine were taken, and the doctor who conducted the surgery found slight displacement of the Atlantis Plate but no breakage. Lyles's symptoms showed no improvement, and he eventually underwent another surgery. Regardless of the surgery’s results, Lyles sued MSD, the company that designed and created the Atlantis Plate, for defective design and defect claims under the assertion that the Atlantis Plate had broken. To support his claim, medical experts hired by Lyles alleged that the images taken shortly after the first surgery and after Lyles returned the first time showed that the Atlantis Plate had come apart. The surgical doctor maintained that at no time did the Atlantis Plate break Lyles made his liability claim under the theory of res ipsa loquitur. What kind of evidence would Lyles have to present to satisfy this theory? Do you think Lyles’s expert opinions are sufficient for him to win the case? How did the court rule?