Childers v. Frye
| Decision Date | 27 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | 517. |
| Citation | 158 S.E. 744,201 N.C. 42 |
| Parties | CHILDERS v. FRYE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Burke County; Shaw, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Sallie Childers, administratrix of the estate of Conie Childers, deceased, against Dr. Glenn R. Frye. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
In action against physician for death of deceased taken to hospital while unconscious, alleged to have resulted from physician's failure to use ordinary care, evidence held not to establish that physician accepted deceased as patient.
The plaintiff is the mother and administratrix of Conie Childers who died on or about May 24, 1930. The defendant is the head physician and surgeon of Richard Baker Hospital, and controlled the same by virtue of a lease from Dr. J. H. Shuford.
The plaintiff alleged that on or about May 18, 1930, her son, who was then 22 years of age, while riding in a motor vehicle driven by another party at a rapid and reckless rate of speed, was suddenly thrown from the vehicle in turning a curve, and as a result thereof his head struck a telephone pole, fracturing his skull and otherwise injuring him to such an extent that he was rendered unconscious; that the injured man was immediately carried by automobile to the hospital of the defendant by his companions, and that the defendant accepted plaintiff's intestate as a patient, but failed to use ordinary care and skill in the diagnosis and treatment of said patient so as to ascertain the extent of his injuries and failed to make an X-Ray examination of the head of plaintiff's intestate; that, after keeping the unconscious man in the hospital for a short period of time the defendant abandoned the treatment of the injured man and directed that he be returned to his home, a distance of about eight miles, and that a few days thereafter plaintiff's intestate died as a result of concussion of the brain; and this action was instituted to recover damages upon the theory that the defendant had failed to make a proper examination of plaintiff's intestate in order to discover the extent of his injuries and had negligently abandoned the treatment of his patient.
The defendant filed an answer denying that he had accepted the plaintiff as a patient and further alleging that plaintiff was brought into his hospital temporarily, in an intoxicated and unconscious condition, and that the companions of the injured man took him home with instructions from the defendant to return him to the hospital after he was sober but that he was never returned to the hospital, and the defendant never requested to render any treatment.
The testimony tended to show that Conie Childers, after being thrown from the car, was taken to the hospital of defendant in Hickory by two or three of his companions. The narrative of the event is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mozingo by Thomas v. Pitt County Memorial Hosp., Inc.
...upon whether the defendant actually accepted Mozingo or Mozingo, Jr. as patients and undertook to treat them. Childers v. Frye, 201 N.C. 42, 45, 158 S.E. 744, 746 (1931) ("ultimate test of liability would depend upon whether the physician actually accepted [a] ... person as a patient and un......
-
Pendergraft v. Royster
...196 N.C. 610, 146 S.E. 573; Smith v. Wharton, 199 N.C. 246, 154 S.E. 12; Penland v. Hospital, 199 N.C. 314, 154 S.E. 406; Childers v. Frye, 201 N.C. 42, 158 S.E. 744; Ferguson v. Glenn, 201 N.C. 128, 159 S.E. Bowditch v. French Broad Hospital, 201 N.C. 168, 159 S.E. 350; Smith v. McClung, 2......
-
Willoughby v. Kenneth W. Wilkins, M.D., P.A.
...would depend upon whether the physician actually accepted [a] ... person as a patient and undertook to treat him." Childers v. Frye, 201 N.C. 42, 45, 158 S.E. 744, 746 (1931). The question before us is whether, when the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, there ......
-
Easter v. Lexington Memorial Hospital, Inc., 116
...of physician to patient must be established as a prerequisite to an actionable claim for medical malpractice. Childers v. Frye, 201 N.C. 42, 158 S.E. 744 (1931). There is also evidence in the record, as testified to by Charles Thomas Frock, President of Lexington Memorial Hospital, upon dep......
-
A Doctor's Legal DutyErosion of the Curbside Consultant
...1995). See also Oliver v. Brock, 342 So. 2d 1, 3 (Ala. 1976); Hiser v. Randolph, 617 P.2d 774 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990); Childers v. Frye, 158 S.E. 744 (N.C. 1931); Ricks v. Budge, 64 P.2d 208 (Utah 1937); Lyons v. Grether, 239 S.E.2d 103 (Va. [51] See Hiser, 617 P.2d at 774. [52] See Dillon v.......