Gillette v. Tucker
Decision Date | 18 November 1902 |
Citation | 65 N.E. 865,67 Ohio St. 106 |
Parties | GILLETTE v. TUCKER. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Lucas county.
Action by Mrs. Tucker against William J. Gillette. Verdict and judgment for defendant was reversed in the circuit court, and defendant brings error. Affirmed by divided court.
In the court of common pleas, the plaintiff, now defendant in error stated her cause of action in the following petition:
The defendant below filed the following demurrer to the petition: ‘ Now comes the said defendant, and demurs to the petition of the said plaintiff, because said petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, for the reason that the cause of action therein stated is barred by the statute of limitations.’ This demurrer was overruled; and the following amended answer was filed: The averments of this answer were denied by a reply, and the case went to trial to a jury. The plaintiff introduced all of her testimony and rested her case. Thereupon the defendant moved the court to instruct the jury to find and bring in a verdict for the defendant, for the reason that plaintiff's case was barred by the statute of limitations, which motion was granted, and the jury was instructed to find for the defendant on the ground stated in the motion. In obedience to the instruction, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. A motion for new trial was overruled and judgment entered. The circuit court reversed this judgment, and the defendant in error in that court is plaintiff in error here, asking that the judgment of the circuit court be reversed, and that of the court of common pleas affirmed.
The important facts developed at the trial are stated in the opinion of the court.
One holding himself out as a general practitioner of medicine and surgery is bound to possess and exercise an average degree of skill possessed by members of the profession practicing in similar localities in the light of the present state of medical science.
Syllabus by the Court
1. A surgeon and physician, employed to treat a case professionally, is under an obligation, which the law implies from the employment, to exercise the average degree of skill, care, and diligence exercised by members of the same profession, practicing in the same or a similar locality, in the light of the present state of medical and surgical science; and that he will indemnify the patient against any injurious consequences which may result from his want of ordinary skill, care, and attention in the execution of his employment.
2. It is the duty of the physician and surgeon to exercise due and ordinary skill, care, and attention, not only in and about an operation which he decides to be necessary, but also, in the absence of a mutual understanding or notice to the contrary, to render such continued further care and treatment as the necessity of the case requires; and he is liable for injuries and damages which proximately result from the want of such ordinary skill, care, and attention.
3. Where the physician and surgeon so engaged operates upon the patient for what (as in this case) he pronounces to be appendicitis, and neglects or carelessly forgets to remove from the abdominal cavity a sponge which he had placed therein, and closes the incision, with the sponge remaining therein, and this condition continues during his entire professional relation to the case, and is present when he abandons or otherwise retires therefrom, the statute of limitations does not commence to run against a right to sue and recover on account of such want of skill, care, and attention, until the case has been so abandoned, or the professional relation otherwise terminated.
D. R. Austin, M. A. Norris, and George F. Wells, for plaintiff in error.
James M. & Walter F. Brown, for defendant in error.
PRICE, J. (after stating the facts).
When the plaintiff below...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Everhart v. Coshocton Cnty. Mem'l Hosp.
...cause of action for certain latent injuries did not accrue until the termination of the doctor-patient relationship, Gillette v. Tucker, 67 Ohio St. 106, 65 N.E. 865 (1902), paragraph three of the syllabus, overruled by Oliver v. Kaiser Community Health Found., 5 Ohio St.3d 111, 449 N.E.2d ......
-
Nash v. Meyer
... ... own authorities recognize that only in the case of a contract ... for unlimited service must the doctor continue attendance. ( ... Gillette v. Tucker, 67 Ohio St. 106, 65 N.E. 865, 93 ... Am. St. 639; Schmit v. Esser, 183 Minn. 354, 236 ... N.W. 622, 74 A. L. R. 1312; Bolles v ... ...
-
Jackson v. Hansard
...v. Noble, (Ga.) 41 S.E. 78; Barnett's Admr. v. Brand, (Ky.) 177 S.W. 461; Palmer v. Humiston, (Ohio) 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 640; Gillette v. Tucker, (Ohio) 65 N.E. 865. The is liable for the negligence of nurses working under him. Aderholt v. Bishop, (Okla.) 221 P. 752; Spears v. McKinnon, (Ar......
-
Janisch v. Mullins, 10--39954--I
...or that failure to discover and remove a foreign object left in the patient's body is 'continuing' negligence (Gillette v. Tucker, 67 Ohio St. 106, 65 N.E. 865 (1902)). See generally, W. Prosser, Law of Tots, 147 (3d ed. 1964); Sisler, Discovery Rule: Accrual of Cause of Action for Medical ......