Brydges v. Cunningham

• Decision Date: 10 June 1912
• Citation: 69 Wash. 8,124 P. 131
• Parties: BRYDGES v. CUNNINGHAM.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

124 P. 131

69 Wash. 8

BRYDGES v. CUNNINGHAM.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 10, 1912

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Wilson R. Gay Judge.

Action by Goldie V. Brydges, a minor, by Maude Brydges, guardian ad litem, against Edward F. Cunningham. From an order granting a judgment non obstante veredicto, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Jay C Allen, for appellant.

Kerr &amp McCord and J. N. Hamill, all of Seattle, for respondent.

MORRIS J.

Appeal from an order granting judgment non obstante veredicto. Respondent is a physician, and the action was one for malpractice in the treatment of the minor plaintiff a little girl seven years of age at the time complained of. It is the contention of appellant that the little girl is suffering from an injury to the sciatic nerve, resulting in permanent paralysis of her right hip and leg, due to a fall from a porch, and that the respondent improperly and negligently failed to apply the proper treatment, treating the case as typhoid fever, instead of making an examination of the injured parts, ascertaining the true condition, and relieving the pressure on the nerve by an operation. Respondent contends that the child is, and from the beginning has been, afflicted with infantile paralysis, for which there is no known cure. The history of the case shows that the child fell from the porch Thursday evening and complained of pain in her hip and leg, which her mother sought to alleviate by applying liniment, which seemed to relieve the pain. Friday and Saturday the child played around as usual, making no complaint, and was apparently fully recovered from the fall. Sunday morning she was still apparently well and went to Sunday school, from which she returned complaining of pain. When asked to locate the pain, she replied: 'I have hurts all around me.' She was put to bed, and her mother treated her all day with hot cloths wrung out in turpentine. In the evening respondent was called in, and at first diagnosed the case as appendicitis and advised an operation. This was objected to by the family, and Monday afternoon another physician was called in consultation with respondent. It was then decided that no operation was necessary, and that the trouble was typhoid fever, for which she was treated for about 21 days. During respondent's visits, when his attention was called to the cold and swollen condition of the hip and leg, he gave it as his opinion that the condition would pass away with the fever, and that nature should be left to take its course. Appellant's theory of negligence depends upon the testimony of several physicians, who were called as experts, to whom a number of hypothetical questions were propounded, tending to sustain the contention that the child was suffering from an injury to the sciatic nerve, caused by the fall on Thursday night. These questions, however, did not include the condition of the child on Friday and Saturday, when she was playing around as usual and making no complaint. Each of these physicians, when interrogated by questions, including the...