Final answer:
A patient whose wrong kidney was removed by a surgeon can likely sue under the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, as such a surgical error is presumed to not occur without negligence. Contributory Negligence and Informed Consent are less relevant unless the patient contributed to the mistake or was not properly informed. Vicarious Liability might apply to the hospital or medical institution.
Step-by-step explanation:
If a surgeon removes the wrong kidney from a patient, the patient may be able to sue under the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur. This legal doctrine allows a plaintiff to prove negligence on the part of a defendant through the very nature of the accident or injury, under the presumption that certain events do not happen without negligence. It literally means 'the thing speaks for itself.' In this case, the surgical error of removing the wrong organ would likely be seen as an event that does not occur without negligence.The Doctrine of Contributory Negligence would not apply here unless the patient contributed to the mistake, which seems unlikely in this scenario. The Doctrine of Informed Consent could be relevant if the patient was not properly informed about the risks of the procedure or the specifics were not discussed. However, it is not the primary doctrine in a case of surgery on the wrong organ. Lastly, the Doctrine of Vicarious Liability might come into play if the hospital or medical institution could be held responsible for the actions of the surgeon, but this would be an additional point rather than the primary legal foundation for the patient's case.