Ernen v. Crofwell

• Decision Date: 02 July 1930
• Citation: 172 N.E. 73,272 Mass. 172
• Parties: ERNEN v. CROFWELL.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

272 Mass. 172

172 N.E. 73

ERNEN

v.CROFWELL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

July 2, 1930.

Defendant contended that the bill of exceptions should be dismissed, for the reason that the testimony was set forth by question and answer, and was not in narrative form.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Winfred H. Whiting, Judge.

Action by Ella Ernen against James B. Crofwell to recover for personal injury for alleged negligence in removal of a tooth. Verdict was directed for defendant, and plaintiff excepts.

Exceptions sustained.

E. Sullivan, of Boston, for plaintiff.

J. M. Cunningham and H. W. Babb, both of Boston, for defendant.

CROSBY, J.

This is an action of tort or contract against a dentist to recover damages alleged to have resulted from his negligence. The defendant rested at the close of the plaintiff's evidence and filed a motion for a directed verdict, which was granted subject to the plaintiff's exception.

The plaintiff, on February 23, 1927, accompanied by her sister went to the defendant's office to have some dental work done. The defendant filled a cavity in one of her teeth and cleaned them. He then proceeded to remove the first molar in the lower right jaw. He had told her it should be extracted and she assented to have it taken out. She asked him to administer gas, but as he did not give gas and suggested the use of novocaine, she told him to use his own judgment and to go ahead. The plaintiff testified that she knew he inserted the novocaine with a needle and she did not mind the pricking sensation due to the injection of the novocaine, but when he started to extract the tooth the pain was so intense that she screamed; that her sister came into the room and the doctor continued to work and the pain was worse than before; that she shrieked again, and he stopped work and closed the windows and doors; that her sister came in again, and she got out of the chair; that the doctor gave her a package of aspirin and told her to take it if the pain was very severe during the night. Both the plaintiff and her sister testified that the defendant did not tell either of them up to the time they left his office that the needle had been broken off in the plaintiff's gum or jaw.

There was evidence that after she left the defendant's office and arrived at her home, a short distance away, her face had swollen on the right side from her ear down to her neck; that her head was turned sideways, and she could not open her mouth. She further testified that after she arrived home she tried to lie down but could not do so, her face and glands on the right side were swollen and very stiff, and after a few minutes she went to the Tufts Medical School where two dentists looked at her mouth and gums and Dr. Norton was sent for; that he took her in his machine to his office and there examined her mouth and gums and took an X-ray picture which he showed her; that she saw the needle in the picture; that Dr. Norton then removed the needle from her gum and jaw and extracted what remained of the tooth. She further testified that the doctor showed her the needle he had removed, which, according to her judgment, was five-eighths of an inch...