Le Faive v. Asselin, 102.
| Decision Date | 04 April 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 102.,102. |
| Citation | 247 N.W. 911,262 Mich. 443 |
| Parties | LE FAIVE v. ASSELIN. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Adolph F. Marschner, Judge.
Suit by Harry J. Le Faive against John L. Asselin. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.Brown, Stoneman, Lorenzo & Springstun, of Detroit, for appellant.
Sempliner, Dewey, Stanton & Bushnell, of Detroit, for appellee.
The defendant is a surgeon engaged in the practice of his profession in the city of Detroit. He operated on the plaintiff for appendicitis on the 8th day of August, 1928. For many months after the operation the plaintiff was troubled with a soreness and pain in his side. He consulted defendant, who gave him internal medicine, advised him to wear an abdominal belt and have his tonsils removed. The condition of the plaintiff did not improve. He was unable to do the work at which he was employed prior to the operation. He went to Canada on a visit to his parents. While there, his condition having grown worse, he consulted a physician, who took an X-ray which revealed the presence of a curved surgical needle imbedded in the region about the appendectomy scar. The needle was removed on September 4, 1929, since which time the plaintiff has suffered no pain or discomfort. The plaintiff returned to the city of Detroit and brought this suit to recover damages for pain and suffering and loss of wages which he claims to have sustained by reason of the defendant's negligence in failing to remove the needle before he closed the incision which he made in performing the operation. The issue was tried by the court without a jury. At the close of the plaintiffs proofs, the defendant moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the plaintiff had not made a prima facie case of negligence. The motion was denied, and defendant rested without submitting any proofs. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff for $1,000. Subsequently, on motion of the plaintiff, there was a reassessment of the damages and an amended judgment entered for $1,250.
The defendant filed a motion to vacate the judgment and for the entry of a judgment in his favor or for a new trial. On the denial of this motion he appealed.
It is urged as cause for appeal that the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict and enter judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence.
It is contended by the defendant that the conclusion of the trial court is based on conjectures and inferences; that there is no evidence as to how the needle got into the plaintiff's body; that there is no evidence by physicians or surgeons that defendant's acts were not in accordance with the recognized standards of practice by the profession; and that in malpractice cases such evidence is necessary to establish negligence.
In the majority of such cases, the professional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whetstine v. Moravec
... ... Warner, 75 Wash. 470, 135 P. 235; LeFaive v ... Asselin, 262 Mich. 443, 247 N.W. 911; Funk v ... Bonham, 204 Ind. 170, 183 N.E. 312; Smith v ... ...
-
Higdon v. Carlebach
...Michigan follows it (Zoterell v. Repp, 187 Mich. 319, 153 N.W. 692; Delahunt v. Finton, 244 Mich. 226, 221 N.W. 168: LeFaive v. Asselin, 262 Mich. 443, 247 N.W. 911; Nemer v. Green, 316 Mich. 307, 25 N.W.2d 207). That it applies to corresponding actions against detists will be seen on exami......
-
Lince v. Monson
...and not conformable to the standards of professional practice and care employed in the community. Among these are LeFaive v. Asselin, 262 Mich. 443, 247 N.W. 911, Winchester v. Chabut, 321 Mich. 114, 32 N.W.2d 358, and Higdon v. Carlebach, 348 Mich. 363, 83 N.W.2d 296. In LeFaive the surgeo......
-
Koch v. Gorrilla
...where an instrument was left inside the patient after surgery; Taylor v. Milton, 353 Mich. 421, 92 N.W.2d 57 (1958); LeFaive v. Asselin, 262 Mich. 443, 247 N.W. 911 (1933); Winchester v. Chabut, 321 Mich. 114, 32 N.W.2d 358 (1948); where defendant dentist injected lysol into the patient's g......