David L. Johnson v. Edward A. Colp
| Decision Date | 14 November 1941 |
| Docket Number | 32,869 |
| Parties | David L. Johnson v. Edward A. Colp |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county on behalf of David L. Johnson, a minor, by his father and natural guardian against defendant, a physician and surgeon, to recover damages for malpractice. The case was tried before Vince A Day, Judge, and a jury. After verdict of $465 for plaintiff defendant appealed from an order denying his alternative motion for judgment or a new trial. Reversed with directions to enter judgment for defendant.
H. J West and C. E. Warner, for appellant.
Erling Swenson, for respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Loring
Physician and surgeon -- action for malpractice -- skill and care exercised -- evidence of negligence.
1. Where neither testimonial nor circumstantial evidence, other than that of an unfavorable result, was offered in support of plaintiff's claim that defendant, a physician and surgeon, did not exercise the required skill and care in performing an operation, the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdict against defendant.
Physician and surgeon -- action for malpractice -- res ipsa loquitur inapplicable.
2. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable.
Action -- in behalf of minor -- parties.
3. An action for injury to a minor child should be brought in the name of the minor, as plaintiff, by his guardian.
This is an action for damages alleged to have been sustained by an infant as the result of malpractice on the part of the defendant. Defendant's motion for a directed verdict was denied, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $465, and defendant appeals from the order denying his alternative motion for judgment or a new trial.
The essential facts are undisputed. The father, accompanied by his father-in-law, took plaintiff, his infant son, to the defendant, a physician and surgeon of some ten years' experience, to be circumcised. The defendant, with his wife's aid, performed the operation, using an instrument called a circumcision clamp. The father and grandfather were called in immediately after the operation to see the result, and one of them remarked that it looked like a neat job. Before they left, defendant asked them to bring the child back in a few days, but, though the mother called and talked to defendant's wife about bleeding, the baby was never brought back as requested. Two weeks after the first operation they took the baby to another physician and surgeon, Dr. Peterson, who examined him and later performed another circumcision, also with a clamp. Dr. Peterson testified that the baby had a scar around and back from the end of his penis, that he cut through this scar tissue in performing his operation, and that he had found it necessary, because of the scar tissue, to dilate the skin of the organ after the operation.
1. The only question raised on appeal that need be considered is whether defendant was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The duty or legal liability of a physician or surgeon in treating his patients is well settled in this state. Though he does not insure a good result, Staloch v. Holm, 100 Minn. 276, 111 N.W. 264, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 712, he must exercise the skill and care that an ordinary member of his school would exercise in his locality, Berkholz v. Benepe, 153 Minn. 335, and cases cited on page 337, 190 N.W. 800. Thus two obligations are imposed upon a physician or surgeon though the dividing line between those obligations is sometimes obscure: (1) To use ordinary skill in diagnosis and method of treatment; (2) to use reasonable care in the manner in which that treatment is applied, or, as in this case, the operation performed. Plaintiff alleged both lack of skill and reasonable care and is entitled to recover if he established either.
First, in regard to skill, plaintiff introduced no evidence of the approved or standard method of performing a circumcision in that community, nor did he offer any evidence tending to show that defendant's methods were unskilful. His only expert witness refused to characterize defendant's surgery as either unskilful or negligent. Defendant testified that he performed the operation according to methods ordinarily used and approved in his locality, and his testimony was not contradicted or impeached. Thus plaintiff failed to prove that defendant did not use the required skill in operating on the boy.
Second, in regard to reasonable care, the only testimony describing the manner in which the operation was performed was produced by defendant. This testimony shows no lack of reasonable care, and there is no other proof of negligence. Thus plaintiff failed to establish a cause of action unless the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be successfully invoked by him.
2. Plaintiff argues that he had proved a fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial