Branch v. Anderson, 23057.
| Decision Date | 18 November 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 23057.,23057. |
| Citation | 171 S.E. 771,47 Ga.App. 858 |
| Parties | BRANCH. v. ANDERSON. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The verdict of the jury is without evidence to support it, and the court erred in overruling the motion for new trial.
Error from Superior Court, Tattnall County; J. Saxton Daniel, Judge.
Suit by C. A. Anderson against A. C. Branch. Judgment for plaintiff, defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and defendant brings error.
Reversed.
C. L. Cowart, of Glennville, and M. Price, of Eudowici, for plaintiff in error.
H. H. Elders, of Reidsville, and P. M. Anderson, of Claxton, for defendant in error.
The verdict of a jury which has the approval of the trial judge will not be set aside by this court if it is supported by any evidence. Civ. Code, 1910, § 60S2; Bell Bros, v. Aiken, 1 Ga. App. 36 (2), 57 S. E. 1001; Edge v. Thomas, 9 Ga. App. 559, 71 S. E. 875. If there is no evidence to support a finding a new trial must be granted. Ren-wick v. LaGrange Bank, 29 Ga. 200. If there is doubt, the appellate courts must decide in favor of verdicts. Brown v. Meador, 83 Ga. 406, 9 S. E. 681. With these principles in mind we come to consider the evidence in the present case. This is a suit against a doctor for alleged malpractice. The petition alleged that in the performance of a necessary operation on the wife of the plaintiff, "the brutal way in which his wife was handled was the direct cause of her death; * * * that defendant did not exercise proper and reasonable or usual care and skill in the performance of said operation, * * * and did not use the same degree of skill and care usually used by physicians under similar circumstances in that vicinity, * * * and did not use due and usual and customary care in the use of said instruments, and as a result tore and lacerated the womb of the deceased wife leaving it torn and lacerated with loose pieces thereof inside of the body; * * * that he negligently failed to remove from said patient the dead child, and afterbirth; * * * and that the same, acting together, caused the death of plaintiff's wife, by such failure to use due and ordinary care and skill in said operation."
Without going into detail it may be said that the uncontradicted evidence showed that the plaintiff's wife had developed peritonitis on Wednesday before the defendant saw her on Friday morning for the first time; that another physician was treating her; and that fever had developed and her abdomen was swelling on Wednesday night and there was a dead foetus in her womb. She weighed 265 pounds. This condition had grown worse on Thursday and the attending doctor advised the calling in of another doctor, the defendant in this case. On Friday morning, when this doctor came, the patient's temperature was 102. The defendant was advised by the first attending physician that an abortion had been attempted by the patient some days prior to this time, and it was agreed that unless the "uterus was emptied, the patient would die." The first? attending physician administered the ether and the defendant attempted to do the necessary work, but was unsuccessful. It was shown that on account of the size of the patient it was impossible to do what might ordinarily be done in a similar situation. The uncontradicted evidence of all the doctors, some five or six, was that what was done was what was usual and customary in like situations, and that peritonitis must have already developed before the defendant ever saw the patient. The evidence for the plaintiff is purely opinionative as to whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Hospital Authority of Clarke County
...'A doctor is not an insurer and an unintended result does not raise even an inference of negligence.' Similarly, in Branch v. Anderson, 47 Ga.App. 858, 860, 171 S.E. 771, 772 we quoted from 21 R.C.L. 392 that 'The fact that treatment has resulted unfavorably does not raise even a presumptio......
-
Sullivan v. Henry
...treatment has resulted unfavorably does not raise even a presumption of want of proper care, skill or diligence. See Branch v. Anderson, 47 Ga.App. 858, 860, 171 S.E. 771; Howell v. Jackson, 65 Ga.App. 422, 423(1), 16 S.E.2d 45; Hayes v. Brown, 108 Ga.App. 360, 363(1), 133 S.E.2d However, i......
-
Washington v. City of Columbus, No. 50504
...and proper under the circumstances. Again, negligence cannot be inferred simply because of an unsuccessful result. Branch v. Anderson, 47 Ga.App. 858, 860, 171 S.E. 771. There was no error in the direction of a verdict in favor of Dr. 3. Defendant Dr. Crosby, an intern, was allegedly neglig......
-
Smith v. Taratus
...a presumption of want of proper care, skill or diligence. Hayes v. Brown, 108 Ga.App. 360, 363(1), 133 S.E.2d 102; Branch v. Anderson, 47 Ga.App. 858, 860, 171 S.E. 771; Hopper v. McCord, 115 Ga.App. 10, 11(2), 153 S.E.2d 2. But the question here involved is based upon an alleged express wa......