Donoho v. Rawleigh
Decision Date | 07 June 1929 |
Parties | DONOHO v. RAWLEIGH. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, McCracken County.
Action by Lucille Rawleigh against G. B. Donoho. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed for a new trial.
Ben S Adams and W. A. Berry, both of Paducah, for appellant.
Wheeler & Hughes, of Paducah, for appellee.
This action was brought by appellee, who was the plaintiff below to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by her by reason of the malpractice of the defendant as a dentist. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $2,000 and judgment was rendered for that amount. Defendant appeals.
The plaintiff had what is called and designated by dentists as an impacted wisdom tooth, or third molar, on the right side of the lower jaw. This wisdom tooth had not grown out so as to be free of the tooth in front of it, but had grown in the bone so that the head or crown of the wisdom tooth pressed against the roots of the second molar. The wisdom tooth being imbedded in the bone, could not be extracted by the usual method of extracting teeth.
Appellant's principal contention is that his motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the evidence should have been sustained.
Appellant who was the defendant below, is a dental surgeon in Paducah, Ky. and has specialized in the practice of removing impacted wisdom teeth. The plaintiff alleged in her petition that she employed the defendant to remove a tooth, and by reason of the unskillful and negligent manner in which he attempted to remove it, her jawbone was fractured. The defendant had previously removed two impacted wisdom teeth for the appellee. Plaintiff testified that in June, 1927, she discovered a small blister on her gum behind her wisdom tooth. She consulted the defendant, who took an X-ray picture of the jaw and found an impacted wisdom tooth which he advised her to have removed. It was agreed that she should return to the dentist's office on the following Thursday to have the tooth removed. She went to his office about 9 o'clock in the morning and he administered a local anæsthetic. After about 20 minutes he split the gum over the bone and began to work with a mallet, chisel, and a drill in an effort to remove the bone from above the impacted tooth. After a considerable period of time he placed an elevator under the tooth and attempted to remove it. While the elevator was being used the plaintiff's jaw was fractured. The defendant then called another dentist, Dr. Neville, and they succeeded in extracting plaintiff's tooth after the fracture had occurred.
The defendant testified that in removing the impacted tooth he used such instruments as are customarily used in such cases; that it was necessary to remove the bone by means of a drill, chisel, and hammer in order that the elevator could be placed under the tooth to force it out. The defendant, in describing the method employed by him in removing the tooth, and using a skull to illustrate his testimony, said:
A number of skilled dental surgeons were introduced by the defendant, who testified that the operation was performed according to the approved methods of practice of dental surgery in Paducah and other similar communities. The plaintiff introduced no evidence to the contrary. It was shown by these witnesses that a fracture of the jawbone was likely to occur and did sometimes occur when an impacted tooth was being removed by a dentist working in a careful and skillful manner.
There is no evidence in the record of any unskillfulness or negligence on the part of defendant in removing plaintiff's impacted tooth. He testified that he used the proper and approved method or technique in removing the tooth, and in this respect he is supported by the testimony of the other dentists introduced as witnesses and who were qualified to testify on that point. Plaintiff wholly failed to make out a case of negligence, unless the jury should be permitted to infer negligence from the result, or, in other words, unless the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the facts in this case. That doctrine does not apply unless we can say that according to the ordinary experience of mankind, a fracture of the jawbone does not occur when an impacted tooth is being removed with proper care. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not ordinarily apply in malpractice cases. We are not unmindful of the fact that in some cases the lack of skill or want of care is so obvious that expert testimony is unnecessary. This, however, is not such a case. The plaintiff has failed to point out anything which the defendant did or omitted to do that indicated lack of skill or care. It is merely claimed that want of care may be inferred from the result, but such an inference is not warranted without the aid of testimony by those skilled in the profession. In 21 R.C.L. 406, the rule as to burden of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Meador v. Arnold
...by the testimony of laymen unless the subject-matter involved is common knowledge or ascertainable by nonexpert's senses. Donoho v. Rawleigh, supra; Rawleigh v. Donoho, Rising v. Veatch, 117 Cal.App. 404, 3 P.2d 1023. And where the proof of facts which show or tend to show negligence on the......
-
Meador v. Arnold
...791, 59 L. R.A. 277, 1 Ann. Cas. 304; Baute v. Haynes, 104 S. W. 272, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 876, 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 752; Donoho v. Rawleigh, 230 Ky. 11, 18 S.W. (2d) 311, 69 A.L.R. 1135; Hoover v. McCormick, 197 Ky. 509, 247 S.W. 718; 21 R.C.L. 389, 406, and 407; Schweitzer's Trial Manual for Negli......
-
Johnson v. Vaughn
...evidence is necessary to support the conclusion of causation. Hanners v. Salmon, 216 Ky. 584, 288 S.W. 307; Donoho v. Rawleigh, 230 Ky. 11, 18 S.W.2d 311, 69 A.L.R. 1135; Stacy v. Williams, 253 Ky. 353, 69 S.W.2d 697; Meador v. Arnold, 264 Ky. 378, 94 S.W.2d 626; Steinmetz v. Humphrey, 289 ......
-
Agsten v. Brown-Williamson Tobacco Corp.
... ... Star Coal Company v. Powers, 252 Ky. 736, 68 S.W.2d 30; ... Fordson Coal Company v. Bledsoe, 236 Ky. 409, 33 ... S.W.2d 302. See, also, Donoho v. Rawleigh, 230 Ky ... 11, 18 S.W.2d 311, 69 A.L.R. 1135 ... That ... the testimony of experts is frequently colored, ... ...