Colvin v. Warren

• Decision Date: 18 February 1932
• Docket Number: 21393.
• Citation: 163 S.E. 268,44 Ga.App. 825
• Parties: COLVIN et al. v. WARREN.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

163 S.E. 268

44 Ga.App. 825

COLVIN et al. v. WARREN.

No. 21393.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

February 18, 1932

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Petition alleging that physicians, in performing operation unnecessarily wounded and cut plaintiff's bladder and other organs, with result that bladder would not properly function, held sufficient.

Malpractice suit, brought within two years after plaintiff, in exercise of ordinary care, discovered that injury caused by operation was permanent, held not barred, where plaintiff alleged that defendants occupying confidential position fraudulently represented that injury was temporary only, and where plaintiff was thereby induced to refrain from making further inquiry (Civ. Code 1910, §§ 4380, 4114 (2).

Error from City Court of Jesup; D. M. Clark, Judge.

Suit by Cella Warren against J. T. Colvin and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.

Affirmed.

Gibbs & Turner, of Jesup, and Bryan, Middlebrooks & Carter, of Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.

Vara A Majette and Gibbs & Turner, all of Jesup, Parker & Parker, of Waycross, and Bryan, Middlebrooks & Carter, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

STEPHENS J.

1. Where it was sought to recover of physicians damages alleged to have resulted from their unskilled performance of a surgical operation upon the plaintiff, allegations in the plaintiff's petition that by the operation the defendants removed certain organs from the body of the plaintiff, and "did with knives, scissors, clips, needles, and other surgical instruments and appliances, in performing the operation upon the plaintiff, unnecessarily wound, cut bruise, tear *** plaintiff's bladder, urethral cord, stem and neck of plaintiff's bladder," and other organs of the plaintiff, and that, "by reason of the carelessness, negligence, unskilfulness, and incompetency of defendants in conducting and performing" the operation, the plaintiff's bladder and other organs were injured unnecessarily, and that, as a result of the injury, the bladder would not properly function, were not subject to objections on demurrer that they were "vague, indefinite, and conclusions not justified by any allegations of fact in the petition."

2. Although the plaintiff, knew immediately after the performance of the operation that, as a result of the operation, her bladder had been left in a condition where it would not properly function, to the plaintiff's annoyance and discomfort, yet, where the defendants assured her that the injury to her bladder was only slight, and that the trouble was only temporary, and the injury "would in time heal itself," and she "would be all right," and she was induced by these representations and assurances of the defendants to "refrain from making further inquiry as to her condition," yet where these...