English v. Free

• Decision Date: 04 May 1903
• Docket Number: 41
• Citation: 55 A. 777,205 Pa. 624
• Parties: English, Appellant, v. Free
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

55 A. 777

205 Pa. 624

English, Appellant, v. Free

No. 41

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

May 4, 1903

Argued April 20, 1903

Appeal, No. 41, Jan. T., 1903, from judgment of C.P Clearfield Co., Dec. T., 1901, No. 5, on verdict for defendant in case of J. E. English v. S. M. Free. Affirmed.

Trespass against a surgeon to recover damages for alleged negligence and unskillfulness in the treatment of an injury received by the plaintiff. Before GORDON, P.J.

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The court gave binding instructions for the defendant.

Verdict and judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned among others was in giving binding instructions for the defendant.

W. C Pentz, with him F. R. Scofield, for appellant, cited: McCandless v. McWha, 22 Pa. 261.

W. C. Arnold and A. L. Cole, for appellee, were not heard, but in their printed brief, cited: Richards v. Willard, 176 Pa. 181.

Before DEAN, FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT and POTTER, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff while working in the shops of the Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburg Railroad Company at Dubois, Pa., in March, 1901, met with a serious accident; a car body fell upon him crushing him to the ground and seriously if not permanently injuring the hip joint; he was taken to the office of defendant, a practicing surgeon, who examined the injury, gave him morphia and had him sent to his home. He continued to treat the injured man for about four months; two other surgeons during that time were also called in to see the patient. At the end of that time Dr. Free told him he could do nothing more for him and ceased his attentions. As his hip was not well and the leg shorter than the other, English went to Pittsburg and entered Mercy Hospital where Dr. Stewart examined him; he diagnosed the injury as a dislocation of the hip-joint and treated it as such; the patient in about two weeks recovered and returned to his home; he claims however and offered evidence tending to show, that there had not been a complete restoration of the limb to its normal condition, and that this result is owing to an incorrect diagnosis of his injury by Dr. Free, and who, as he alleges, did not treat it as a dislocation which it subsequently proved to be.

The court below nonsuited the plaintiff and he appeals, arguing, that the question was one for the jury to determine whether defendant brought to the treatment of the case reasonable professional skill and diligence.

It is settled law in this class of cases, that "a surgeon undertakes to possess...