Burton v. Tribble, No. 4-3442.

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the CourtJohnson
Citation70 S.W.2d 503
PartiesBURTON v. TRIBBLE.
Decision Date16 April 1934
Docket NumberNo. 4-3442.
70 S.W.2d 503
BURTON
v.
TRIBBLE.
No. 4-3442.
Supreme Court of Arkansas.
April 16, 1934.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Garland County; Earl Witt, Judge.

Action by Jessie Murphy Burton against Dr. Albert Tribble. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Will Steel and Frank S. Quinn, both of Texarkana, for appellant.

Martin, Wootton & Martin, of Hot Springs, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Chief Justice.


Appellant instituted this suit in the Garland circuit court against appellee, alleging: That appellee was, at all the times hereinafter stated, and is now, a duly practicing physician and surgeon; that, in the year 1926, appellant employed appellee to perform, and that he did perform, a major operation upon her abdomen or abdominal cavity; that at the conclusion of said operation appellee carelessly and negligently left remaining in her abdominal cavity a ball of gauze 1½ inches in diameter, and that appellee carelessly and negligently closed the incision into her abdominal cavity without first removing said ball of gauze, and thereby inclosed same within her body; that thereafter appellee continued to treat appellant as physician and surgeon, but carelessly and negligently withheld from appellant any and all information or knowledge in reference to her abdominal cavity containing said foreign substance; that appellant had no information and did not know that said foreign substance was left in her abdominal cavity until 1933, at which time she was compelled to

Page 504

undergo another operation at Texarkana for the removal of said foreign substance. Appellant further alleged continuous pain and suffering from the date of the operation in 1926 until the date of the second operation in 1933 and laid damages in the sum of $35,000.

Appellee interposed, and the trial court sustained, a demurrer to appellant's complaint upon the theory that the alleged cause of action accrued at the time of the operation in 1926 and was barred by limitation three years thereafter. Judgment was entered dismissing appellant's complaint, and this appeal is prosecuted to reverse this judgment.

But one question is presented for determination: Is appellant's alleged cause of action barred by the three-year statute of limitation (Crawford & Moses' Dig. § 6950)?

In Field v. Gazette Publishing Co., 187 Ark. 253, 59 S.W.(2d) 19, 20, we announced the applicable rule of limitation in tort actions as follows: That in all tort actions arising in this jurisdiction, not otherwise limited by law, and where the means of information in reference to the cause of the injury were equally accessible to each and both parties, and there was no fraudulent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 practice notes
  • Peralta v. Martinez, No. 2786
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • April 12, 1977
    ...302, 57 P.2d 908 (1936); Hotelling v. Walther, 169 Or. 559, 130 P.2d 944 (1942), 144 A.L.R. 205 (1943); Burton v. Tribble, 189 Ark. 58, 70 S.W.2d 503 (1934). In Roybal, the surgeon-patient relationship terminated nine and one-half years before exploratory surgery discovered and removed the ......
  • Jackson v. Swift-Eckrich, Civ. No. 92-5133.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Arkansas
    • August 11, 1993
    ...for fraud is governed by a three-year statute of limitations. Ark.Code Ann. § 16-56-105 (1987). See also Burton v. Tribble, 189 Ark. 58, 70 S.W.2d 503 (1934) (three year statute applies to all tort actions). In Dupree v. Twin City Bank, 300 Ark. 188, 777 S.W.2d 856 (1989) the court As to fr......
  • Ripplemeyer v. National Grape Co-op. Ass'n, Inc., Civ. No. 92-5034.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Arkansas
    • December 3, 1992
    ...for fraud is governed by a three-year statute of limitations. Ark.Code Ann. § 16-56-105 (1985). See also Burton v. Tribble, 189 Ark. 58, 70 S.W.2d 503 (1934) (three year statute applies to all tort actions). "As to fraud or misrepresentation, mere ignorance of one's rights does not prevent ......
  • Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Hamilton Hotel Partners, Civ. No. 88-5136.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Arkansas
    • December 16, 1988
    ...Code Ann. § 16-56-105. It is well established that the three year statute applies to all tort actions. Burton v. Tribble, 189 Ark. 58, 70 S.W.2d 503 (1934). Therefore, plaintiff's allegations of negligence with respect to the Hamilton I transaction are time III. Defendant, Morgan, Olmstead,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
41 cases
  • Peralta v. Martinez, No. 2786
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • April 12, 1977
    ...302, 57 P.2d 908 (1936); Hotelling v. Walther, 169 Or. 559, 130 P.2d 944 (1942), 144 A.L.R. 205 (1943); Burton v. Tribble, 189 Ark. 58, 70 S.W.2d 503 (1934). In Roybal, the surgeon-patient relationship terminated nine and one-half years before exploratory surgery discovered and removed the ......
  • Jackson v. Swift-Eckrich, Civ. No. 92-5133.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Arkansas
    • August 11, 1993
    ...for fraud is governed by a three-year statute of limitations. Ark.Code Ann. § 16-56-105 (1987). See also Burton v. Tribble, 189 Ark. 58, 70 S.W.2d 503 (1934) (three year statute applies to all tort actions). In Dupree v. Twin City Bank, 300 Ark. 188, 777 S.W.2d 856 (1989) the court As to fr......
  • Ripplemeyer v. National Grape Co-op. Ass'n, Inc., Civ. No. 92-5034.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Arkansas
    • December 3, 1992
    ...for fraud is governed by a three-year statute of limitations. Ark.Code Ann. § 16-56-105 (1985). See also Burton v. Tribble, 189 Ark. 58, 70 S.W.2d 503 (1934) (three year statute applies to all tort actions). "As to fraud or misrepresentation, mere ignorance of one's rights does not pre......
  • Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Hamilton Hotel Partners, Civ. No. 88-5136.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Arkansas
    • December 16, 1988
    ...Code Ann. § 16-56-105. It is well established that the three year statute applies to all tort actions. Burton v. Tribble, 189 Ark. 58, 70 S.W.2d 503 (1934). Therefore, plaintiff's allegations of negligence with respect to the Hamilton I transaction are time III. Defendant, Morgan, Olmstead,......
  • 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