Frisk v. Cannon

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation110 Minn. 438,126 N.W. 67
Decision Date22 April 1910
PartiesFRISK v. CANNON & BALCOME et al. SAME v. BALCOME.

110 Minn. 438
126 N.W. 67

FRISK
v.
CANNON & BALCOME et al.
SAME
v.
BALCOME.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 22, 1910.


Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Grier M. Orr, Judge.

Action by Hulda E. Frisk against Charles M. Cannon and F. E. Balcome. Verdict for plaintiff as against defendant Balcome, and in favor of defendant Cannon. From the judgment, defendant Balcome appeals; and from the order dismissing the action as to defendant Cannon, plaintiff appeals. Order and judgment affirmed.


Syllabus by the Court

Plaintiff was placed by one of defendant physicians on an insulated platform, a conical cap was put above and in front of her head, and electricity was caused to be discharged by a static machine through the cap upon plaintiff's head. Defendant left the room. No attendant was present. Plaintiff's head was seriously burned. It is held that actionable negligence on part of defendant was shown.


[126 N.W. 67]

Richard & Coe, for appellant Frisk.

C. D. & R. D. O'Brien, for appellant Balcome.


PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff and appellant charged the defendants and respondents, as partners engaged in the practice of medicine, with having negligently treated plaintiff with static electricity, to her injury. It was alleged: Plaintiff was placed on an insulated platform connected with the electrical machine. Above and in front of her head was put a conical cap, in a position subsequently described in detail. Static electricity was caused to be discharged from the machine, through the cap, in, upon, and through plaintiff. Defendant then left the room. No attendant was present. After the lapse of eight or ten minutes, plaintiff screamed. Defendant immediately entered the room, and discovered that her head was smoking. Through the negligence of defendant a large portion of the top and sides of plaintiff's head was seriously burned, whereby she was damaged in the sum of $5,000. Defendant admitted the fact of burning, but denied negligence. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict of $1,200 for plaintiff. This appeal was taken from judgment entered against defendant Balcome.

Plaintiff made out a prima facie case of negligence. Plaintiff's only expert testified that, if the cap were brought close to the

[126 N.W. 68]

head and there was volume enough, there would be a continuous spark and harm would result. His testimony to the effect that the distance the cap was placed from plaintiff's head would determine whether a burn was likely to occur, together with the testimony of plaintiff that it was not adjusted as on former occasions, and also the conduct of defendant in leaving the plaintiff in the room unattended, while the machine was working, for the space of ten minutes, during which time the burn occurred in connection with the other evidence in the case, was sufficient to take the question of defendant's negligence to the jury.

The trial court was justified in concluding that defendants were not partners, and that defendant Cannon was not liable for the negligence of defendant Balcome.

Order and judgment affirmed.

O'BRIEN, J., took no part.

JAGGARD, J.

I respectfully dissent. The evidence in my opinion rebuts the inference of negligence, to which it may be conceded the circumstances gave rise. It appears that this plaintiff had been subjected to the same treatment by the same machine on seven or eight previous occasions without harm. Defendant called a number of well-known experts of the highest character. The effect of their testimony is:...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Whitmore v. Herrick, No. 38636.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 6, 1928
    ...Curtis on Electricity, § 597; San Juan Light & Trans. Co. v. Requena, 224 U. S. 89, 32 S. Ct. 399, 56 L. Ed. 680;Frisk v. Cannon, 110 Minn. 438, 126 N. W. 67; 2 Jones on Evidence, § 184, pp. 182 and 183; Johnson v. Marshall, 241 Ill. App. 80;Loveland v. Nelson, 235 Mich. 623, 209 N. W. ......
  • Whitmore v. Herrick, 38636
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 6, 1928
    ...on The Law of Electricity, Section 597; San Juan L. & T. Co. v. Requena, 224 U.S. 89, 56 L.Ed. 680, 32 S.Ct. 399; Frisk v. Cannon, 110 Minn. 438 (126 N.W. 67); 2 Jones Commentaries on Evidence [205 Iowa 624] (1913) 182, 183, Section 184; Johnson v. Marshall, 241 Ill.App. 80; Loveland v.......
  • Prewitt v. Higgins
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • November 26, 1929
    ...negligence either in selecting or administering the treatment. Miller v. Blackburn, supra; Sweeney v. Erving, supra. Cf. Frisk v. Cannon, 110 Minn. 438, 126 N.W. 67, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 262. Injury may result from the use of the drug even when the doctor has proceeded with the utmost care a......
  • Prewitt v. Higgins
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • November 26, 1929
    ...negligence either in selecting or administering the treatment. Miller v. Blackburn, supra; Sweeney v. Erving, supra. Cf. Frisk v. Cannon, 110 Minn. 438, 126 N.W. 67, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 262. Injury may result from the use of the drug even when the doctor has proceeded with the utmost care and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Whitmore v. Herrick, No. 38636.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 6, 1928
    ...Curtis on Electricity, § 597; San Juan Light & Trans. Co. v. Requena, 224 U. S. 89, 32 S. Ct. 399, 56 L. Ed. 680;Frisk v. Cannon, 110 Minn. 438, 126 N. W. 67; 2 Jones on Evidence, § 184, pp. 182 and 183; Johnson v. Marshall, 241 Ill. App. 80;Loveland v. Nelson, 235 Mich. 623, 209 N. W. ......
  • Whitmore v. Herrick, 38636
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 6, 1928
    ...on The Law of Electricity, Section 597; San Juan L. & T. Co. v. Requena, 224 U.S. 89, 56 L.Ed. 680, 32 S.Ct. 399; Frisk v. Cannon, 110 Minn. 438 (126 N.W. 67); 2 Jones Commentaries on Evidence [205 Iowa 624] (1913) 182, 183, Section 184; Johnson v. Marshall, 241 Ill.App. 80; Loveland v.......
  • Prewitt v. Higgins
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • November 26, 1929
    ...negligence either in selecting or administering the treatment. Miller v. Blackburn, supra; Sweeney v. Erving, supra. Cf. Frisk v. Cannon, 110 Minn. 438, 126 N.W. 67, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 262. Injury may result from the use of the drug even when the doctor has proceeded with the utmost care a......
  • Prewitt v. Higgins
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • November 26, 1929
    ...negligence either in selecting or administering the treatment. Miller v. Blackburn, supra; Sweeney v. Erving, supra. Cf. Frisk v. Cannon, 110 Minn. 438, 126 N.W. 67, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 262. Injury may result from the use of the drug even when the doctor has proceeded with the utmost care and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT