Alexander v. Menefee

• Decision Date: 24 October 1901
• Citation: 64 S.W. 855
• Parties: ALEXANDER v. MENEFEE. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

64 S.W. 855

ALEXANDER v. MENEFEE. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 24, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Grant county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Frank Menefee against J. B. Alexander to recover damages for malpractice. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

A. G De Jarnette, for appellant.

W. W Dickerson, for appellee.

GUFFY J.

This action was instituted in the Grant circuit court by the appellee, seeking to recover judgment against the appellant for $10,000 damages for the unskillful, careless, and unscientific treatment of plaintiff's arm, the particulars of which are fully set out in the petition. It appears that the plaintiff's wrist was accidentally broken by a discharge from a shotgun while hunting, and that it was necessary to amputate his arm some distance from the wrist, and that the defendant, who was a regular, practicing physician, was employed to treat the arm and the complaint, in substance, is that appellant performed the operation without the assistance of another surgeon or physician to aid in administering anæsthetics, as a result of which plaintiff suffered much during the operation, and did not remain quiet or unconscious, and thereby the operation was not performed as it should have been; that one of the arm bones was cut shorter than the other, which prevented healing of the wound, and rendered it impossible for the flesh to cover the bone in such a manner as to heal. Other defects and unskillful actions were alleged, the result of which, it is alleged, caused the arm to remain sore, and caused the bones to protrude through the skin and become entirely uncovered and will cause the bones to decompose; that it will be necessary to have his arm resected; and many other injuries and defects are alleged in the petition. The answer may be treated as a complete traverse of all the averments in the petition which show a right to recover. The reply traverses all the affirmative averments of the answer. A trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $1,500, and, appellant's motion for a new trial having been overruled, he prosecutes this appeal.

The substance of the grounds relied on for a new trial is because the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is contrary to law; that the verdict is excessive, and appears to have been found under the influence of passion and prejudice;...