Griffin v. Woodhead
Decision Date | 01 December 1909 |
Citation | 74 A. 417,30 R.I. 204 |
Parties | GRIFFIN v. WOODHEAD. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Comities; Willard B. Tanner, Presiding Justice.
Action by Katherine Griffin against Raymond Woodhead. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.
Hugh J. Carroll, for plaintiff.
Gardner, Pirce & Thornley (William W. Moss, of counsel), for defendant.
The declaration in this case alleges, in substance, that the defendant, a physician whom plaintiff had employed, so unskillfully and negligently conducted himself in the caring for a broken hip that permanent shortening of her leg has resulted. The defendant pleads that the cause of action did not arise within two years, to which the plaintiff has demurred. The superior court held the plea to be good. The plaintiff also seeks to avoid the bar of the statute by a replication alleging that "the plaintiff was residing without this state for a long period of time, to wit, for more than one year, after the happening of the matters set forth in her declaration and before the commencement of said action," and the defendant's demurrer thereto was sustained by the superior court. The plaintiff has duly excepted to these decisions, and brings the case here.
The decision of the superior court sustaining the demurrer to the replication is correct, and we pass to a consideration of the question raised by the plea.
The statutes of limitation relative to injuries to the person are sections 248, 249, and 250, Court and Practice Act 1905, as follows:
The plaintiff claims that her declaration sounds in contract, and not in tort, and hence that the period of six years given by section 250 is available for her, rather than the period of two years specified in section 248. We do not find it necessary to decide whether the declaration in this "action on the case for malpractice," as it is therein styled, which begins by averring an employment of the defendant by the plaintiff as her physician for a suitable compensation and then avers a breach of duty in negligently and unskillfully attending the plaintiff, is to be considered as sounding in contract rather than in tort, for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Emerson v. Magendantz
...negligence based malpractice causes of action have been recognized in Rhode Island since at least 1909. Griffin v. Woodhead, 30 R.I. 204, 74 A. 417 (1909).4 For perhaps the clearest discussion of the three tort designations and what each concerns, see Miller v. Johnson, 231 Va. 177, 343 S.E......
-
Yoshizaki v. Hilo Hospital
...on another point by Fernandi v. Strully, 35 N.J. 434, 173 A.2d 277, 286); Nightlinger v. Johnson, 18 Pa.Dist. & Co.R. 47; Griffin v. Woodhead, 30 R.I. 204, 74 A. 417; Klingbeil v. Saucerman, 165 Wis. 60, 160 N.W. 1051, 1 A.L.R. Plaintiff's claim is to recover general damages for the injury ......
-
Bloss v. Dr. C.R. Woodson Sanitarium Co.
... ... 581; ... Handtoffski v. Traction Co., 274 Ill. 282; Weber ... v. Railroad Co., 109 N.Y. 311; Maxon v. Railway ... Co., 112 N.Y. 559; Griffin v. Woodhead, 30 R ... I. 204; Harding v. Liberty Hospital, 171 P. 98; 17 ... C. J. 1402, par. 54; Glenn v. Hill, 210 Mo. 291. (2) ... Appellant's ... ...
-
Fricker v. Town of Foster, C.A. 84-0156 S.
...the term "injuries to the person" both in statutes ancestral to § 9-1-14 in the legislative line of descent, e.g., Griffin v. Woodhead, 30 R.I. 204, 205-06, 74 A. 417 (1909) ("There are many other classes of injuries to the person than those caused by the application of force to the body.")......