Devereaux v. Smith, 2805.
| Decision Date | 22 July 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 2805.,2805. |
| Parties | DEVEREAUX v. SMITH. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Navarro County; A. P. Mays, Judge.
Action by Robert Lee Devereaux against Dr. L. L. Smith, for damages as a result of certain alleged acts of negligence on the part of defendant in pulling plaintiff's tooth. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
J. S. Simkins and Pevehouse & McCall, of Corsicana, for appellant.
Thompson, Knight, Harris, Wright & Weisberg, of Dallas, and Roe & Ralston, of Corsicana, for appellee.
Appellant brought this suit against appellee, a practicing dentist, to recover damages as the result of certain alleged acts of negligence on the part of appellee in pulling appellant's tooth. After the introduction of all the evidence the trial court instructed the jury to return a verdict for appellee and rendered judgment in his favor.
The testimony of appellant reveals that one of his wisdom teeth was causing him to suffer severe pain and had been for several days prior thereto; that his left upper jaw was swollen and that he was in such pain that he could not eat or rest. He went to a doctor of medicine, who told him that it was his tooth that was causing his trouble and advised him to see a dentist. He went to appellee's office and related to him how he was suffering and told him that he had been to a dentist in 1945, who had refused to pull his tooth; that he was suffering such pain that he could not eat or rest and he wanted some relief. Appellee gave him a hypodermic injection near the tooth. When the needle was pulled out blood ran out of his mouth and nose. After a few minutes appellee proceeded to pull the tooth by taking it out piece by piece. That appellee did not wash appellant's mouth out after pulling the tooth but told him to go home and wash it out with cold water. He left appellee's office about 2:30 P.M., and about 7:30 P.M. his face began to swell and by 10:00 o'clock one side of his mouth was drawn around to the side of his left ear and his left eye was closed. He went back to appellee the next morning and he washed appellant' mouth out thoroughly with a preparation that he cleaned his tooth with. He left that night for Camp Hood, where he remained for ten days in the department of the dental clinic. While there his left eye was badly swollen to the extent that he could hardly see out of it; his mouth was so swollen he could not eat, or drink water with a quill, and after he left the hospital and went home he still had trouble with his eye and mouth and that he had not fully recovered at the date of the trial. During his stay at the hospital X-ray pictures were taken of his jaw. He was given no medicine and no treatment was prescribed for him except he was told to go home and take care of himself.
The appellee was called as a witness by the appellant and testified that when the appellant came to his office he complained of pain all the night before; that he examined the tooth and knew that it ought to be pulled. Appellant had swelling under the orbit of the eye but no pus around the tooth; that the swelling was a result of where the pus had been; that the pus seeks the line of least resistance and was in the flabby tissue; that the crown of the tooth was rotted out and under such conditions the roots are taken out one by one; that the dental profession recognizes that all extractions of teeth are serious and that he knew just exactly how to handle a tooth. After pulling the tooth he washed appellant's mouth out but did not use an antiseptic because it was against good dentistry; that he did not tell the appellant to wash his mouth out with some substance to prevent further infection but advised him not to disturb it at all.
Appellant alleged that the appellee was negligent in the following particulars: (a) In extracting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heyward v. Republic Nat. Life Ins. Co.
...approved); Culkin v. Nieman-Marcus Company, 354 S.W.2d 397 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1962, writ ref'd); Devereaux v. Smith, 213 S.W.2d 170 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1948, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Under the pleadings and the applicable authorities, the burden of proof was on plaintiff to prove that the......
-
Thomas v. Beckering
...Heaney, 82 S.W.2d 417, (Tex.Civ.App.) err. dism.; Phillips v. Wright, supra; Kootsey v. Lewis, 126 S.W.2d 512, (Tex.Civ.App.); Devereaux v. Smith, 213 S.W.2d 170, (Tex.Civ.App.); Connelly v. Cone, 205 Mo.App. 395, 224 S.W. 1011; 13 A.L.R.2d '* * * Where the proof discloses that a given resu......
-
Stinnett v. Price
...inference thereof indulged against a physician. Kaster v. Woodson et al., Tex.Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 981 (writ refused); Devereaux v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 213 S.W.2d 170 (n.r.e.) and cases there cited; Floyd et ux. v. Michie, Tex.Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d It is stated in Bell v. Umstattd, Tex.Civ.A......
-
Christian v. Galutia, 2936
...or in delaying the Caesarean operation until the evening of that day. Floyd v. Michie, Tex.Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 657; Devereaux v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 213 S.W.2d 170 (er. ref. n. r. e.); Brown v. Shannon West Texas Memorial Hospital, Tex.Civ.App., 222 S.W.2d 248 (er. ref. n. r. e.); Simms v.......