Feeney v. Spalding

• Decision Date: 08 April 1896
• Citation: 35 A. 1027,89 Me. 111
• Parties: FEENEY v. SPALDING.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

35 A. 1027

89 Me. 111

FEENEY

v. SPALDING.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

April 8, 1896.

(Official.)

Case by Genevieve Feeney, pro ami, against James A. Spalding, for malpractice, in which there was a verdict for plaintiff. On motion for a new trial. Sustained.

J. F. Lynch, for plaintiff.

T. L. Talbot, for defendant.

WISWELL, J. The defendant is a physician and oculist, practicing in Portland. In the summer of 1891, while on a trip to Machias, to visit patients, he stopped over for a short time at Cherryfield. While he was there, the plaintiff, at that time a girl seven years old, who had been cross-eyed in one eye since she was a year and a half old, was taken to the defendant by her father for examination and operation, if thought desirable.

After an examination by the defendant, he performed the usual operation for a difficulty of this kind, bandaged the child's eye, gave certain directions to the father, and proceeded upon his journey.

It was claimed by the plaintiff that, prior to this operation, the sight of this eye was, at least, fairly good; that, in fact, no defect whatever in the vision had ever been complained of by the plaintiff or observed by her parents or teacher; and that, after the operation, the sight of the eye operated upon was entirely gone. She alleges in her writ that this result was caused by the ignorance and want of skill of the defendant, and by his carelessness in the performance of the operation. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff.

Before the plaintiff was entitled to recover a verdict, it was incumbent upon her to prove that the injury complained of was caused either by the defendant's want of that degree of skill and knowledge which is ordinarily possessed by physicians who devote special attention and study to the treatment of the eye, or by his failure to exercise his best judgment in the application of his skill to the particular case, or by his failure to use ordinary care in the performance of the operation and in giving such instructions as should have been given by a surgeon who was only to perform the operation, and who was temporarily in the locality where the patient lived.

At the trial, the plaintiff relied almost entirely upon the result which it is claimed followed the operation. Upon this question the evidence was conflicting. The plaintiff, her parents, and others testified that before the operation there was no defect in vision, or that they had never observed any; while the...