Colvin v. Warren
| Decision Date | 18 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 21393.,21393. |
| Citation | 44 Ga.App. 825,163 S.E. 268 |
| Parties | COLVIN et al. v. WARREN. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Error from City Court of Jesup; D. M. Clark, Judge.
Suit by Cella Warren against J. T. Colvin and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
Affirmed.
Gibbs & Turner, of Jesup, and Bryan, Mid-dlebrooks & Carter, of Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
Vara A. Majette and Gibbs & Turner, all of Jesup, Parker & Parker, of Waycross, and Bryan, Middlebrooks & Carter, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. Where it was sought to recover of physicians damages alleged to have resulted from their unskilled performance of a surgical operation upon the plaintiff, allegations in the plaintiff's petition that by the operation the defendants removed certain organs from the body of the plaintiff, and "did with knives, scissors, clips, needles, and other surgical instruments and appliances, in performing the operation upon the plaintiff, unnecessarily wound, cut, bruise, tear * * * plaintiffs bladder, urethral cord, stem and neck of plaintiff's bladder, " and other organs of the plaintiff, and that, "by reason of the carelessness, negligence, unskilfulness, and incompetency of defendants in conducting and performing" the operation, the plaintiff's bladder and other organs were injured unnecessarily, and that, as a result of the injury, the bladder would not properly function, were not subject to objections on demurrer that they were "vague, indefinite, and conclusions not justified by any allegations of fact in the petition."
2. Although the plaintiff, knew immediately after the performance of the operation that, as a result of the operation, her bladder had been left in a condition where it would not properly function, to the plaintiff's annoyance and discomfort, yet, where the defendants assured her that the injury to her bladder was only slight, and that the troublewas only temporary, and the injury "would in time heal itself, " and she "would be all right, " and she was induced by these representations and assurances of the defendants to "refrain from making further inquiry as to her condition, " yet where these representations and assurances, when made by the defendants, were known by them to be false, ana they knew that the injury to the plaintiff's bladder was in fact permanent and the bladder's inability to properly function would be permanent, and the representations and assurances were made with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fernandi v. Strully
...where the statute is widely deemed to be tolled. See Buchanan v. Kull, 323 Mich. 381, 35 N.W.2d 351 (Sup.Ct.1949); Colvin v. Warren, 44 Ga.App. 825, 163 S.E. 268 (Ct.App.1932). In Burton v. Tribble, supra, 189 Ark. 58, 70 S.W.2d 503, a surgeon carelessly left a ball of gauze in the plaintif......
-
Everhart v. Rich's, Inc.
...133 (174 SE 365); Silvertooth v. Shallenberger, 49 Ga.App. 758 (176 SE 829); Bryson v. Aven, 32 Ga.App. 721 (124 SE 553); Colvin v. Warren, 44 Ga.App. 825 (163 SE 268); Tabor v. Clifton, 63 Ga.App. 768 (12 SE2d 137); Dowling v. Lester, 74 Ga.App. 29(2) (39 SE2d 576); Saffold v. Scarborough,......
-
van Bronckhorst v. Taube, 2--574A124
...See Adams v. Ison (1952), Ky.App., 249 S.W.2d 791; Bowman v. McPheeters (1947), 77 Cal.App.2d 795, 176 P.2d 745; Colvin v. Warren (1932), 44 Ga.App. 825, 163 S.E. 268. We cannot say that, as a matter of law, plaintiff was not entitled to rely on the identical opinions of two doctors. Nor ca......
- Colvin v. Warren