Artist v. Butterweck
| Decision Date | 17 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 21410,21410 |
| Citation | 162 Colo. 365,426 P.2d 559 |
| Parties | E. J. ARTIST and Donn J. Barber, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Janice BUTTERWECK, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Yegge, Hall, Treece & Evans, Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Marshall Quiat, Denver, L. Thomas Woodford, Wheat Ridge, for defendant in error.
Defendant in error here, Janice Butterweck, brought an action against Dr. E. J. Artist and Dr. Donn J. Barber, plaintiffs in error, for malpractice allegedly resulting in the death of Mrs. Butterweck's husband, the late John Butterweck. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court, or by name. John Butterweck will be referred to as the deceased.
After a lengthy trial, a jury of six returned a verdict for plaintiff for $11,833. Judgment was entered on that verdict in the total amount of $12,632.91, and from this judgment the defendants brought writ of error here.
The record discloses that on February 22, 1963, Dr. Artist performed an operation upon the deceased at the Weld County General Hospital for the purpose of draining an abscess in the deceased's buttock in the region of the rectum. The deceased died on March 1, 1963. While the expert witnesses were in conflict as to the cause of death, they were in agreement that the deceased was suffering from liver trouble, peritonitis and pelvic abscess at the time of his death.
The theory of the plaintiff's case was that the defendants failed to diagnose the existence of peritonitis and pelvic abscess after the operation and so failed to treat these illnesses from which the deceased died. She contended that the defendants negligently failed to test deceased for the existence of peritonitis when deceased's symptoms were such as indicate the strong probability of such condition.
Defendants maintained that the cause of death was Not peritonitis and pelvic abscess, but was failure of the deceased's liver resulting in death due to hepatic coma.
The defendants present three alleged errors on this appeal:
1. 'As a matter of law, there was no evidence of any negligent act or omission on the part of either defendant.'
2. 'As a matter of law, there was no evidence that any negligent act or omission on the part of either defendant was a proximate cuase of the death of John Butterweck.'
3. 'The objections of defendants to questions regarding the standard of care in the taking of cultures were erroneously overruled, * * *'
In their first assignment of error, the defendants claim that there was no evidence that the defendants performed any negligent act or negligently failed to perform any necessary act. We cannot agree.
The law in Colorado is well settled with respect to the obligations of a physician to his patient, and is best set out in Bonnet v. Foote, 47 Colo. 282, 107 P. 252, 28 L.R.A.,N.S., 136. There we clearly pointed out the three-fold nature of the profession which a physician impliedly makes to his patient. We said that, in the absence of a special contract, the law implies that a surgeon employed to treat an injury contracts with his patient, (1) that he possesses that reasonable degree of learning and skill which is ordinarily possessed by others of the profession; (2) that he will use reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the exercise of his skill and the application of his knowledge to accomplish the purpose for which he is employed; and (3) that he will use his best judgment in the application of his skill in deciding upon the nature of the injury and the best mode of treatment.
It is an alleged breach of the second obligation which is the foundation of the plaintiff's claim. There was evidence from which a jury could find in this case that by the use of certain diagnostic aids which one of plaintiff's witnesses testified are regularly used by skillful physicians, peritonitis could have been diagnosed. Although the defendants' witnesses testified that they did not observe any symptoms inconsistent with their diagnosis of hepatic coma,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Destefano v. Grabrian
...members of that profession in the community. This claim of professional negligence is a claim for malpractice. See Artist v. Butterweck, 162 Colo. 365, 426 P.2d 559 (1967); Dixon v. Norberg, 113 Colo. 352, 157 P.2d 131 (1945). Malpractice consists of any professional misconduct, unreasonabl......
-
Kibler v. State, 84SA464
...v. Lund, 286 S.C. 410, 334 S.E.2d 116 (1985); see Lee v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 654 P.2d 839 (Colo.1982); Artist v. Butterweck, 162 Colo. 365, 426 P.2d 559 (1967). When the phrase "repeatedly negligent manner" is viewed in the context of the statute as a whole, the meaning of that......
-
Day v. Johnson
...in the application of his skill in deciding upon the nature of the injury and the best mode of treatment. Id.; Artist v. Butterweck, 162 Colo. 365, 368, 426 P.2d 559, 560 (1967); Klimkiewicz v. Karnick, 150 Colo. 267, 274, 372 P.2d 736, 739 (1962); Brown v. Hughes, 94 Colo. 295, 304, 30 P.2......
-
Hamilton v. Hardy
...that reasonable degree of learning and skill which is ordinarily possessed by others of the profession . . ..' Artist v. Butterweck, 162 Colo. 365, 426 P.2d 559. Whether Dr. Hardy possessed a reasonable degree of learning in 1967 with respect to the risks associated with oral contraceptives......