Caldwell v. Knight, 35811
| Decision Date | 03 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 35811,35811,2 |
| Parties | A. W. CALDWELL v. J. E. KNIGHT |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The law relating to the licensing of chiropractors in this State does not make illegal the use by such persons of rhythmic traction machines in performing adjustments on patients unless it be shown that such use is not according to specific chiropractic methods.
2. (a) On a motion for nonsuit the evidence and all legitimate inferences therefrom should be construed in favor of upholding the action.
(b) Usually, what is the standard of care required by a physician is one concerning highly specialized knowledge with respect to which a layman can have no information. In such cases the court and jury must be dependent on expert testimony in order to determine whether the standard of care employed by the defendant in a malpractice case falls short of the required degree of care and skill so as to amount to negligence, there being no other guide. Where, however, the question does not concern a claim of negligence in diagnosis or choice in methods of treatment but rather involves a charge of negligence in the act of administering such treatment, there are types of cases in which negligence and proximate cause may be proved by nonexpert witnesses.
(c) The plaintiff here offered evidence that immediately after having been strapped to a table and subjected to an alternating pulling and stretching of his spinal column by means of a mechanical device over a 10 or 15 minute period, which was administered in the absence of the defendant or any person to control, operate or adjust the device, he suffered excruciating pain and inability to move or perform his bodily functions for a period of many days, plus the testimony of his physician that the disability from which he suffered was the result of trauma. Such testimony made a jury question as to whether the plaintiff's disability was the result of negligence of the defendant in administering such adjustment and mechanical manipulation of his body, even in the absence of expert medical testimony to this effect.
A. W. Caldwell filed an action in the Superior Court of Floyd County against J. E. Knight for damages for injuries resulting from a treatment given him by the defendant, a chiropractor. The allegations of negligence in the petition are to the effect that the defendant, by the illegal, unskillful and violent use of a certain machine, stretched, pulled and contused the plaintiff's lumber muscles, ligaments and limbs; that the defendant failed to properly adjust the straps on the plaintiff's body to avoid overstrain, stretching or contusion; failed to remain present in the room while the stretching machine was in operation so that he could detect and correct any overstrain or faulty operation of the machine; failed to properly adjust the restraining straps and to properly adjust the machine so as not to overstretch and overstrain the plaintiff's muscles, ligments and limbs; failed to call a medical doctor upon the plaintiff's request but permitted him to continue to suffer without benefit of alleviating drugs; made such negligent, unskillful, illegal and unauthorized use of said machine as to so overstrain and contuse his muscles, ligaments and limbs that he was unable to work for approximately one month from the date of treatment; failed to use ordinary care and skill in attempting to treat or adjust the plaintiff so that he was unable to bear any weight on his feet or to urinate for a period of several days, and that the machine used by him was illegal and not contemplated by the law defining the practice of chiropractic. The allegation of negligence in making use of a machine not contemplated by the law licensing chiropractors was stricken on demurrer. Upon the trial of the case the plaintiff was nonsuited. He assigns error on the sustaining of the special demurrer and to the judgment of nonsuit.
Clower & Anderson, Rome, for plaintiff in error.
Matthews, Maddox, Walton & Smith, Rome, for defendant in error.
1. Code, § 85-501 provides as follows: 'The term 'chiropractic' as used in this Chapter means the adjustment of the articulation of the human body, including ilium, sacrum and coccyx, and in the use of electricity X-ray photography, but the X-ray shall not be used for therepeutical purposes.' Code, § 84-509 provides as follows: Nothing in these Code sections prohibits the use of the rhythmic traction machine used by the defendant in making an adjustment on the plaintiff, and the petition does not allege that the machine was an X-ray used for therapeutical purposes, or was not according to specific chiropractic methods, or involved the practice of surgery, osteopathy or any other prohibited act. Accordingly, this allegation of negligence per se was properly stricken on demurrer.
2. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was to the effect that he had been suffering for 4 or 5 months from a slight pain in his lower back; that he had received several manual adjustments by the defendant; that on the day in question, after the manual adjustment, the defendant laid him face down on a table, attached a strap around his chest and another around his hips, turned on a motor, and 'it started to pulling, and alternate pull, pulling me apart and then releasing and pulling again', that this continued 10 or 15 minutes; that during this time the defendant left the room and no one remained with the plaintiff; that when the defendant returned, cut off the motor and released the straps, the plaintiff attempted to pull up his leg to get off the table and was seized by excruciating pain and was unable to rise; that he rolled off the table to the floor; that he remained in terrific pain and was unable to put any weight on his feet in order to get in position where he could get up; that his body became saturated with perspiration and he was forced to cry...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Killingsworth v. Poon
...v. Phillips, supra 213 Ga. at 271-272, 98 S.E.2d 552; Summerour v. Lee, supra 104 Ga.App. at 75, 121 S.E.2d 80; Caldwell v. Knight, 92 Ga.App. 747, 751, 89 S.E.2d 900 (1955). However, we note that although the above facts are often cited as "PRONOUNCED RESULTS" INDICATIVE OF POSSIBLY neglig......
-
Cherokee County Hosp. Authority v. Beaver
...exception to this general evidentiary rule requiring the plaintiff to produce expert testimony was recognized in Caldwell v. Knight, 92 Ga.App. 747, 89 S.E.2d 900 (1955) and was applied in the context of summary judgment in Killingsworth v. Poon, supra. The "pronounced results" exception is......
-
Bae v. Arlington Spine Center, P.L.L.C,
...citations violate GR 14.1(a), and we will neither consider nor discuss them. GR 14.1(a), (c). Ms. Bae also relies on Caldwell v. Knight, 92 Ga.App. 747, 89 S.E.2d 900 (1955), a 1955 case from Georgia. This reliance is misplaced. In Caldwell, the court observed that negligence can be proven ......
-
Bae v. Arlington Spine Ctr., P. L.L.C.
...violate GR 14.1(a), and we will neither consider nor discuss them. GR 14.1(a), (c). Ms. Bae also relies on Caldwell v. Knight, 92 Ga. App. 747, 89 S.E.2d 900 (1955), a 1955 case from Georgia. This reliance is misplaced. In Caldwell, the court observed that negligence can be proven by nonexp......