68 Pa. 168 (Pa. 1871), Chamberlin v. Morgan

• Citation: 68 Pa. 168
• Opinion Judge: SHARSWOOD, J.
• Party Name: Chamberlin v. Morgan.
• Attorney: W. H. Jessup, for plaintiff in error R. B. Little, for defendant in error
• Judge Panel: Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW and SHARSWOOD, JJ. WILLIAMS, J., at Nisi Prius.
• Case Date: March 23, 1871
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 168

68 Pa. 168 (Pa. 1871)

Chamberlin

v.

Morgan.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 23, 1871

March 14, 1871

1. In a suit by a servant who has been wrongfully dismissed before his term is out, the defendant may show in mitigation that he might have procured employment in the interim.

2. It is the duty of the servant in such case not to remain idle if he be able to work.

3. It is incumbent on an injured party to do whatever he reasonably can to lessen the injury.

4. In an action against a physician for malpractice to an injured arm, he offered to prove by a consulting physician that at an examination by him " in the presence of and at request of her father, he proposed to put plaintiff under the influence of an anæ sthetic, and attempt to reduce it, and that the father replied in presence of plaintiff, ‘ that so long as she was improving so fast as she had done since he came home, he should not have it disturbed,’ and that the injury could then have been reduced." Held, that the offer was properly rejected.

Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW and SHARSWOOD, JJ.

WILLIAMS, J., at Nisi Prius.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna county: No. 220, to January Term 1871.

This was an action on the case brought, June 2d 1869, by Hattie Morgan, by her father and next friend James Morgan, against Dr. Abraham Chamberlin for malpractice by which her arm that had been dislocated had become stiffened.

The plaintiff was about sixteen years of age; the dislocation occurred on the 15th of September 1868.

The defendant was called in two days afterwards, and treated the case. There was much evidence given by the plaintiff of the manner in which her arm had been treated by the defendant. After some time her father took her to Drs. Halsey and Richardson, whom he consulted, and who attempted to reduce the dislocation. The plaintiff having closed, the defendant called Dr. Richardson, and proposed to prove by him that " at his first examination of the arm of plaintiff, in presence of and at request of her father, he proposed to put plaintiff under the influence of an anæ sthetic, and attempt to reduce it, and that Morgan replied in presence of plaintiff, ‘ that so long as she was improving so fast as she had done since he came home, he should not have it disturbed,’ and that the injury could then have been reduced."

The offer was objected to by the plaintiff, rejected by the court (Morrow, J.), and a bill of...