Beck v. Ger. Klinik

• Decision Date: 28 October 1889
• Citation: 78 Iowa 696,43 N.W. 617
• Parties: BECK v. THE GERMAN KLINIK ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

78 Iowa 696

43 N.W. 617

BECK

v.THE GERMAN KLINIK ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 28, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Scott county; W. F. BRANNAN, Judge.

Action to recover for malpractice and want of care in the treatment of a broken leg of plaintiff. There was a trial to a jury and verdict for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.

ROBINSON and GRANGER, JJ., dissenting.

Henze & Hirschl, for appellants.

B. Peters, D. B. Nash, and George E. Hubbell, for appellee.

BECK, J.

1. The defendant the German Klinik is an incorporation, whose business appears to be connected in some way with the treatment of diseased and injured persons. The defendants Gustave Hoepfner and others are members of the incorporation, and surgeons and physicians having charge of the patients treated by the incorporation. Plaintiff, by some accident, broke the bones of his left leg, and employed defendants to treat him. After treatment, according to the usual course pursued by surgeons, which was once or twice renewed, by reason of the fact that the patient had not wholly recovered, the plaintiff was finally discharged from treatment by defendants, or ceased further to employ or consult them. His leg, not being wholly cured, became bent and crooked, and finally, after this suit was commenced, it was amputated by other surgeons. This action is brought to recover for the injuries plaintiff sustained by defendants' neglect and want of skill in the treatment of his broken limb. The cause was upon the evidence submitted to the jury, under instructions of which no complaint is made in this court. A general verdict was had for plaintiff, and special findings in response to questions propounded by the court were returned by the jury. They are in the following language: “(1) Did the defendants, or either of them, properly set the plaintiff's leg on December 21, 1885? Answer. Yes. (2) Did the said defendants Jaenicke and Hoepfner, or either of them, properly treat the plaintiff from the day on which they set his leg up to the time at which they released him from the splint and bandages? A. Yes; but we do not consider it a perfect cure when discharged. (3) Were the methods and appliances which defendants used in plaintiff's treatment such as are found among the different methods and appliances used and approved of by physicians, who were possessed of and who exercised, at least, the average skill of the medical profession as a body at that time? A. Yes. (4) Was plaintiff's leg, when taken from the splint and bandages, as crooked, or nearly as crooked, as when amputated? A. No. (5) Did plaintiff exercise ordinary care in the use of his leg after being released from the bandages? A. Yes.” Defendants moved that the general verdict be set aside, and that judgment be rendered for them upon the special findings. This motion was overruled, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff on the general verdict. This action of the court constitutes the only ground of complaint of defendants on this appeal.

2. It is insisted that the special findings are inconsistent with the general verdict, and are such as show that defendants are not liable in this action, and therefore a judgment thereon should have been rendered for defendants. The instructions given to the jury are not complained of by defendants. Among others the following was given: “When the defendants undertook the treatment of this case, the duty rested upon them to give to it such care and skill as the ordinarily educated and skilled members of their profession, at the time, would have given to it, and to give to the patient proper instructions for the care and use of the wounded limb. If the evidence satisfies you that they did this, then they did all that the law required of them, and they would not be liable. It is for you to say, from the evidence before you, whether they gave to the treatment of the case such skill, care, and attention, or not, and to the patient proper instructions for the care and use of the wounded leg. If they did not, they were guilty of negligence, and would be liable for injury resulting from such negligence, unless the evidence satisfies you that the plaintiff contributed to such injury by his own negligence and want of care.” It will be observed that this instruction declares, rightly enough, that defendants were charged with the duty, among others, of giving plaintiff “proper instructions for the care and use of the wounded leg,” and that, if they omitted this duty, they were guilty of negligence, and would be liable for injury resulting therefrom. The rule of law is doubtless correct. At all events, it is the law of this case, and so recognized by both parties, neither objecting to it. Now, if the jury found that defendants failed in the discharge of duty stated in this instruction, they rightly found for plaintiff upon the general verdict. There was evidence tending to authorize such a finding, which is sufficient to support it. A brief reference to the evidence found in the original and amended abstract fully sustains this conclusion. The plaintiff and two or more witnesses testify that the defendants directed plaintiff to use his limb after the gypsum bandages used to keep the bones in place were removed, and to walk with crutches, and that they gave no directions further as to the manner or extent of such use. There was evidence tending to show that the broken bone had not well united, either because of improper treatment or because of its diseased condition, and that when the bandage was removed, or soon thereafter, the limb, at the wounded part, was crooked. These facts the jury were authorized to find from the evidence. They are shown by the testimony of physicians and surgeons and other witnesses, who testified in the case. One of the...