Ga. Northern Ry. Co v. Ingram

• Decision Date: 05 February 1902
• Parties: GEORGIA NORTHERN RY. CO. v. INGRAM.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

40 S.E. 708

114 Ga. 639

GEORGIA NORTHERN RY. CO.

v.INGRAM.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 5, 1902.

MALPRACTICE—BURDEN OF PROOF— EVIDENCE.

1. In a suit for damages alleged to have been caused by the malpractice of a surgeon, the burden is on the plaintiff to show a want of due care, skill, or diligence, and also that the injury resulted from the want of such care, skill, or diligence.

2. The evidence in this case did not authorize a verdict for the plaintiff.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Brooks county; J. B. Estes, Judge.

Action by Ant Ingram against the Georgia Northern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

W. M. Hammond and W. S. Humphreys, for plaintiff in error.

S. A. Roddenbery, S. S. Bennet, and Felder & Rountree, for defendant in error.

SIMMONS, C. J. Ingram brough his action for damages against the Georgia Northern Railway Company. In his petition he alleged that he was an employed of the company, and that the company had contracted with him and other employes that, for 50 cents per month, it would furnish a skilled surgeon to attend them in case of sickness or accident; that the defendant had appointed a Dr. Daniels as its surgeon, and plaintiff had complied with his agreement to pay 50 cents per month; that on a certain occasion plaintiff was injured while endeavoring to dismount from an engine; that Dr. Daniels was sent for by the agents of the defendant; that the doctor came, dressed the wound, and told plaintiff that his injuries were not serious; that, by reason of neglect on the part of the doctor and unskillful treatment, gangrene set in, and plaintiff's leg had to be amputated above the knee. On the trial the plaintiff and his witnesses testified, in substance, that the doctor was called on Saturday and dressed the wound, saying there was no danger of losing the leg. He did not return until Tuesday or Wednesday. After that the doctor sent his brother to dress the wound. This brother washed the wound in water so hot as to give the patient great pain, and then bound it so tightly with bandages as to cause plaintiff excessive pain and suffering. Plaintiff suffered greatly for two days, when Dr. Daniels returned. Upon examining the wound he said it was in bad condition. On Saturday the doctor amputated the limb, saying that his brother had bound it up too tight. In behalf of the defendant the doctor testified that he was a graduate of two medical colleges, one in Georgia and the other in New York, and that he had practiced medicine for about eight years, and had experience in treating this kind of wound; that the wound of plaintiff was properly treated; that it was not neglected, and had not been...