Andreotalla v. Gaeta

Decision Date23 May 1927
Citation260 Mass. 105,156 N.E. 731
PartiesANDREOTALLA v. GAETA.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Joseph F. Quinn, Judge.

Action of tort by Frank Andreotalla against Alphonso Gaeta for injury caused by negligence or deceit. Verdict for plaintiff, and both parties except. Plaintiff's exceptions overruled. Defendant's exceptions overruled.

Hannigan & Fox and Myer L. Orloy, all of Boston, for plaintiff.

J. C. Johnston, of Boston, for defendant.

BRALEY, J.

The jury on conflicting evidence warrantably could find the following facts: The plaintiff, an illiterate shoemaker, was operated on for tonsilitis in the latter part of June, 1920, by one Dr. Cohen. The operation was successful and the plaintiff shortly after returned to his work. But on the 15th of the following August a cough developed, and he went to the defendant's pharmacy, known as the ‘Revere Pharmacy,’ which was in charge of one Louis Constanza during the defendant's absence in Europe. The plaintiff asked Constanza, who was a registered pharmacist, for something to relieve his cough, and thereupon Constanza prepared and sold to the plaintiff a bottle containing a dark brown liquid, which had the ordinary label of the pharmacy with the words, ‘Creo. Turp. Virg. Acqa,’ and directions for taking the contents. It however contained no codeine or other narcotic. The plaintiff took a dose of it and the next day consulted Dr. Cohen, who upon examination determined that he was suffering from bronchitis' and gave him a prescription. The plaintiff on reaching his home in the evening gave this prescription with a $2 bill to a messenger, and instructed her to go to the defendant's pharmacy, and have the prescription filled. But he also suggested that the bottle of medicine previously purchased should be taken to the pharmacy, and instructed the messenger to inquire if the prescription ‘was the same thing, and if not the same thing to have the prescription filled.’ The messenger accordingly went to the pharmacy and handed the prescription and bottle of medicine to Constanza and told him that Frank Andreotalla, the plaintiff, wanted the prescription filled, and also ‘wanted to know if the medicine in the bottle was the same thing as that called for by the prescription.’ ‘If it was not, he wanted the prescription filled.’ Constanza, after examining the bottle and the prescription, said ‘that the medicine contained in the bottle was the same as that called for by the prescription, and that there was no need to have the prescription filled, and told her further to tell that to the plaintiff, and to tell him to take the medicine.’ The messenger returned, and after being informed of what Constanza had said, the plaintiff took several doses of the medicine. But his cough having increased, accompanied by fever and chills, he was compelled to leave his work, and returned home and went to bed. Dr. Cohen was called and found him suffering from bronchitis, ‘severely aggravated, incipient pulmonary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Correa v. Schoeck, SJC–12409
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 7, 2018
    ...a duty to fill prescriptions correctly. Cottam v. CVS Pharmacy, 436 Mass. 316, 320, 764 N.E.2d 814 (2002), citing Andreotalla v. Gaeta, 260 Mass. 105, 109, 156 N.E. 731 (1927), and Nesci v. Angelo, 249 Mass. 508, 511, 144 N.E. 287 (1924). See G. L. c. 94C, § 19 (a ) ("The responsibility for......
  • Rudnick v. Rudnick
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 30, 1932
    ...to rescission. Bates v. Cashman, 230 Mass. 167, 119 N. E. 663;Loomis v. Pease, 234 Mass. 101, 107, 125 N. E. 177;Andreottala v. Gaeta, 260 Mass. 105, 109, 110, 156 N. E. 731;Des Brisay v. Foss, 264 Mass. 102, 111, 162 N. E. 4. See, also, Alpine v. Friend Bros., Inc., 244 Mass. 164, 167, 138......
  • Gianocostas v. Interface Group-Mass.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • February 26, 2008
    ...Mass. 172, 175, 172 N.E. 73 (1930) (dentist failed to inform plaintiff that broken needle remained in her jaw); Andreotalla v. Gaeta, 260 Mass. 105, 109, 156 N.E. 731 (1927) (pharmacist gave plaintiff wrong drug with assurance it was adequate); Cowen v. Sunderland, 145 Mass, 363, 366, 14 N.......
  • Gillis v. Walgreen Eastern Co.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Massachusetts
    • December 20, 2001
    ...... when dispensing prescription medications and filling. prescriptions. See Andreotalla v. Gaeta, 260 Mass. 105, 109 (1927); Norton v. Sewall, 106 Mass. 143. (1870). This duty of reasonable care requires a pharmacy to. fill ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT