Coakley v. Hayes, 16156
| Decision Date | 20 February 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 16156,16156 |
| Citation | 121 Colo. 303,215 P.2d 901 |
| Parties | COAKLEY v. HAYES. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
O. Otto Moore, Denver, Arnold R. Gilbert, Denver, W. T. Moyers, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Benjamin C. Hilliard, Jr., Denver, for defendant in error.
Defendant in error, defendant below, was a physician residing in Burlington, Colorado. Plaintiff in error was thrown from a horse, and employed defendant to diagnose and treat his resulting injuries. This action is predicated on alleged negligence of defendant in examination, diagnosis and failure of proper treatment of certain of such injuries. At the close of the evidence, the court instructed the jury to return a verdict in favor of defendant, and the matter comes here solely on the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to justify that instruction.
After his injury, plaintiff was taken to defendant's office. Defendant had him hospitalized, ascertained that he had suffered a fracture of the left clavicle, employed a figure-eight bandage, and a good union resulted from the treatment. Plaintiff testified that he suffered much pain in his neck, back and left hand, as well as in his shoulder, and repeatedly so advised defendant. Upon release from the hospital plaintiff went to Brush to watch some horse races and while there he consulted a chiropractor who advised him to go to Denver and have x-rays taken, but he did not follow that advice; instead he went to Yuma with the race horses. Afterwards he went to Denver for the purpose of seeing a specialist, but the one sought was not available, so he merely had his arm dressed and returned home. Some time later he consulted a physician at Goodland, Kansas, who advised him to have x-rays taken, but he did not follow that advice. Still later, and some six months after his accident, he consulted another physician at Burlington who took him to Denver for examination by Dr. Hartshorn, an orthopedic surgeon. That surgeon testified at the trial that x-rays which were taken indicated displacement of the fifth cervical vertebra, together with decrease in thickness, and calcification of the sixth, which probably was the result of its fracture several months before. He testified further that he found wasting and shrinking of the left arm, the muscles of which were smaller and weaker than those of the right arm; weakness in the grip of the left hand and some limitation in motion of the left shoulder. As a result of these findings, plaintiff was hospitalized for application of traction to keep the neck still and relax the muscles and tissues in an attempt to adjust the malalignment, although he testified that that result was not expected 'to happen after a period of time.' He further testified that burning sensation down the hand would be a normal consequence of a dislocated fifth or sixth vertebra; that wasting of the muscular tissue of the arm would be expected, and that the degree would depend on the amount of injury to the nerve root and the seriousness of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ramirez, Case No. 06SC71 (Colo. 4/16/2007)
...that evidence of a mere possibility of a fact having occurred is not sufficient to support a judgment, relying on U.S. Fidelity, Russell, Coakley, and Polz. 122 Colo. at 515, 224 P.2d at 226. In U.S. Fidelity , we held that findings based wholly upon conjecture and possibilities cannot be s......
-
People v. Ramirez
...that evidence of a mere possibility of a fact having occurred is not sufficient to support a judgment, relying on U.S. Fidelity, Russell, Coakley, and Polz. 122 Colo. at 515, 224 P.2d at 226. In U.S. Fidelity, we held that findings based wholly upon conjecture and possibilities cannot be su......
-
Carrigan v. Roman Catholic Bishop
...242, 115 A.L.R. 292; Cyr v. Giesen, 150 Me. 248, 108 A.2d 316; Hurley v. Johnston, 143 Conn. 364, 367, 122 A.2d 732; Coakley v. Hayes, 121 Colo. 303, 215 P.2d 901. See Annots. 13 A.L.R.2d 11, 112; 54 A.L.R.2d 200, 221; 54 A.L.R.2d 273, 285, The plaintiff's exceptions to evidentiary rulings ......
-
Martin K. Eby Construction Co. v. Neely, 7796.
...Lumber Co. v. Ruybal, 133 Colo. 502, 297 P.2d 531; Gordon v. Clotsworthy, 127 Colo. 377, 257 P.2d 410, 49 A.L.R.2d 314; Coakley v. Hayes, 121 Colo. 303, 215 P.2d 901. The burden is not met in Colorado by the showing of the mere happening of an accident or the occurrence of an injury. Remley......