Degelau v. Wight

• Decision Date: 15 May 1901
• Citation: 86 N.W. 36,114 Iowa 52
• Parties: DEGELAU v. WIGHT ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

114 Iowa 52

86 N.W. 36

DEGELAU

v.WIGHT ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 15, 1901.

Appeal from district court, Chickasaw county; L. E. Fellows, Judge.

Defendants are physicians and surgeons practicing their profession as co-partners. This action is brought to recover damages for the negligent and unskillful treatment by them of plaintiff's wife, whose death, it is alleged, was caused thereby. At the close of plaintiff's case the court sustained a motion to direct a verdict for defendants. Such a verdict was returned, and from the judgment rendered thereon plaintiff appeals. Reversed.Sager & Sweet, for appellant.

Springer & Clary, for appellees.

WATERMAN, J.

Frieda Degelau, the intestate, was the wife of plaintiff. In March, 1898, she consulted defendants professionally, and, on their advice, submitted to the operation of curettage of the uterus, which we understand to be the scraping of the membrane of that organ with an instrument called a “curette,” in order to remove cysts, granulations, or foreign matter. The operation was performed by the two defendants, and very shortly after it the patient died. The grounds of the motion for a verdict were that there was no evidence tending to show that defendants were negligent in doing any act performed, or failing to do any act which the law required of them. The testimony introduced on plaintiff's behalf therefore demands our attention. In considering this, it must be borne in mind that plaintiff is entitled to the most favorable construction which the facts will bear. The making of such a motion by defendants amounted to an admission of all matters which the testimony tended to prove. Meadows v. Insurance Co., 67 Iowa, 57, 24 N. W. 591.

Plaintiffs wife, who was 21 years of age when she died, gave birth to a child on August 12, 1897, and as a consequence was confined to her bed for a period of one or two weeks; the witnesses differing in their statements as to the time. When she rose from her bed she resumed her household duties, which were such as usually fall to the lot of a farmer's wife; her husband being engaged in that occupation. She was troubled after this with intermittent pains, as the witnesses say, “in the lower part of the body.” She continued, however, to do housework and care for her child down to the time of the operation. On the 23d and 24th of January, 1898, but little more than a month preceding the operation, she was in good spirits, and danced at two neighborhood gatherings. The day before the operation, as her husband testifies, “she ate and did her work in the house, carried the victuals on the table, and washed the dishes.” About February 22d the decedent first consulted the defendants. They gave her medicine, and, after an examination, recommended the operation which was afterwards performed. They told one witness her trouble “was something of the afterbirth of the child.” This is the way the witness states it. After some hesitation on the part of decedent, and an assurance by defendants that there was no danger, decedent consented to submit to it. On March 2, 1898,...