Hager v. Clark

• Decision Date: 13 January 1917
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

161 N.W. 280

35 N.D. 591

WILHELMINA HAGER, by J. J. Schmidt, her Guardian, v. WILLIAM E. CLARK

Supreme Court of North Dakota

January 13, 1917

Rehearing denied February 8, 1917.

Appeal from the District Court of Wells County, Hon. J. A. Coffey J.

Affirmed.

John O Hanchett, for appellant.

The jury must discriminate between the conditions which make the services of the physician necessary, and the evil results, if any, due to his malpractice, and no recovery can be had for an injury or condition not traceable to defendant's negligence. Feeney v. Spalding, 89 Me. 111, 35 A 1027; English v. Free, 205 Pa. 624, 55 A. 777; Ewing v. Goode, 78 F. 442; Georgia Northern R Co. v. Ingram, 114 Ga. 639, 40 S.E. 708; James v. Robertson, 39 Utah 414, 117 P. 1068, 2 N. C. C. A. 782; Kernodle v. Elder, 23 Okla. 743, 102 P. 138, 21 Am. Neg. Rep. 331; Marchand v. Bellin, 158 Wis. 184, 147 N.W. 1033; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255, 77 N.W. 813, 87 Minn. 197, 91 N.W. 487; Pettigrew v. Lewis, 46 Kan. 78, 26 P. 458; Phebus v. Mather, 181 Ill.App. 274; Spain v. Burch, 169 Mo.App. 94, 154 S.W. 172; Whitesell v. Hill, Iowa , 66 N.W. 894; Craig v. Chambers, 17 Ohio St. 254; Levy v. Vaughan, 42 App. D. C. 146; 30 Cyc. 1584; 9 Enc. Ev. 833; Wharton & S. Med. Jur. 517; Warmath v. O'Daniel, 16 L.R.A.(N. S.) 416, note.

To hold a physician in damages, it must appear that he neglected the proper treatment through inattention or carelessness. Hills v. Shaw, 69 Ore. 460, 137 P. 229; Long v. Austin, 153 N.C. 508, 69 S.E. 500; Luka v. Lowrie, 171 Mich. 122, 41 L.R.A.(N.S.) 290, 136 N.W. 1106; McGraw v. Kerr, 23 Colo.App. 163, 128 P. 870; Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261, 1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 439, 111 Am. St. Rep. 462, 104 N.W. 12, 5 Ann. Cas. 303; Staloch v. Holm, 100 Minn. 276, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 712, 111 N.W. 264; Van Meter v. Crews, 149 Ky. 335, 148 S.W. 40; Williams v. Poppleton, 3 Ore. 139; Wurdemann v. Barnes, 92 Wis. 206, 66 N.W. 111; Barfield v. South Highlands Infirmary, 191 Ala. 553, 68 So. 30, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 1097; Brydges v. Cunningham, 69 Wash. 8, 124 P. 132.

Where the immediate facts necessary to sustain a verdict rest on conjecture or suspicion alone, it should not be said in any enlightened tribunal that it could reasonably sustain a verdict. Phebus v. Mather, 181 Ill.App. 274; Staloch v. Holm, 100 Minn. 276, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 712, 111 N.W. 264; Martin v. Courtney, 87 Minn. 197, 91 N.W. 487; Georgia Northern R. Co. v. Ingram, 114 Ga. 639, 40 S.E. 708; Feeney v. Spalding, 89 Me. 111, 35 A. 1027; Bigney v. Fisher, 26 R. I. 402, 59 A. 72.

Where want of skill is not shown by expert evidence, applied to the facts, in this class of cases, there is no evidence of negligence, and no recovery can be had. Laymen cannot testify on the question of negligence. Baker v. Lane, 23 R. I. 224, 49 A. 963; Carstens v. Hansleman, 61 Mich. 426, 1 Am. St. Rep. 606, 28 N.W. 159; Ewing v. Goode, 78 F. 442; Longfellow v. Vernon, 57 Ind.App. 611, 105 N.E. 178; Rogers v. Key, 171 Mich. 551, 137 N.W. 260; Neifert v. Hasley, 149 Mich. 232, 112 N.W. 705; Bonnet v. Foote, 47 Colo. 282, 28 L.R.A.(N.S.) 136, 107 P. 252; Adolay v. Miller, 60 Ind.App. 656, 111 N.E. 313; Brown v. Goffe, 140 A.D. 353, 125 N.Y.S. 458; Kline v. Nicholson, 151 Iowa 710, 130 N.W. 722, 1 N. C. C. A. 290; Lawson v. Crane, 83 Vt. 115, 74 A. 614; Moline v. Christie, 180 Ill.App. 334.

In such cases much is left to the judgment of the physician in charge of the case, and a clear case of negligence or of improper and careless treatment must be established. Leighton v. Sargent, 27 N.H. 460, 59 Am. Dec. 388; Ely v. Wilbur, 49 N.J.L. 685, 60 Am. Rep. 668, 10 A. 358, 441; 22 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 798, 804, and cases cited; Harris v. Fall, 27 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1174, 100 C. C. A. 497, 177 F. 79, 3 N. C. C. A. 176; Marchand v. Bellin, 158 Wis. 184, 147 N.W. 1033; Bonnet v. Foote, 47 Colo. 282, 28 L.R.A.(N.S.) 136, 107 P. 252; Moline v. Christie, 180 Ill.App. 334; Booth v. Andrus, 91 Neb. 810, 137 N.W. 884; Coss v. Spaulding, 41 Utah 447, 126 P. 468; Dashiell v. Griffith, 84 Md. 363, 35 A. 1094; Dorris v. Warford, 124 Ky. 768, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1090, 100 S.W. 312, 14 Ann. Cas. 602; Dunbauld v. Thompson, 109 Iowa 199, 80 N.W. 324; Dye v. Corbin, 59 W.Va. 266, 53 S.E. 147; Gates v. Fleisher, 67 Wis. 504, 30 N.W. 674.

In determining what constitutes reasonable and ordinary care, skill, and diligence, the test is that which physicians and surgeons in the same neighborhood and in the same general line of practice ordinarily have and exercise in like cases and under like or similar circumstances. Whitesell v. Hill, Iowa , 66 N.W. 894, 101 Iowa 629, 37 L.R.A. 830, 70 N.W. 750, 2 Am. Neg. Rep. 134; McBride v. Huckins, 76 N.H. 206, 81 A. 528; Cranford v. O'Shea, 75 Wash. 33, 134 P. 486; Burk v. Foster, 114 Ky. 20, 59 L.R.A. 277, 69 S.W. 1096, 1 Ann. Cas. 304; Allen v. Voje, 114 Wis. 1, 89 N.W. 924; Ferrell v. Ellis, 129 Iowa 614, 105 N.W. 993; Dye v. Corbin, 59 W.Va. 266, 53 S.E. 147.

The performance by a physician of his implied contract is determined by the standards of his profession at the time of the treatment, in similar localities, and he is not bound to have a greater knowledge or skill, nor to exercise a higher degree of care and skill, than those possessed and exercised by other doctors of the profession, practising in the same or similar localities. Wurdemann v. Barnes, 92 Wis. 206, 66 N.W. 111; Martin v. Courtney, 87 Minn. 197, 77 N.W. 813; Peck v. Hutchinson, 88 Iowa 320, 55 N.W. 511; Van Skike v. Potter, 53 Neb. 28, 73 N.W. 295; Booth v. Andrus, 91 Neb. 810, 137 N.W. 884; Dye v. Corbin, 59 W.Va. 266, 53 S.E. 147; Griswold v. Hutchinson, 47 Neb. 727, 66 N.W. 819; 22 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 799; 30 Cyc. 1570, § b; 3 Wharton & S. Med. Jur. §§ 473, 459.

In no case except by special contract is a physician held to insure his treatment or that it will result in a cure. He is not bound to secure certain results at all hazards, and a failure does not raise a presumption of negligence. Baker v. Langan, 165 Iowa 346, 145 N.W. 513; Bonnet v. Foote, 47 Colo. 282, 28 L.R.A.(N.S.) 136, 107 P. 252; Booth v. Andrus, 91 Neb. 810, 137 N.W. 884; Coombs v. King, 107 Me. 376, 78 A. 468, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1121, 3 N. C. C. A. 167; English v. Free, 205 Pa. 624, 55 A. 777; Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464; Miller v. Toles, 183 Mich. 252, L.R.A.1915C, 595, 150 N.W. 118; Kuhn v. Brownfield, 34 W.Va. 252, 11 L.R.A. 700, 12 S.E. 519; Lee v. Moore, Tex. Civ. App. , 162 S.W. 437; McGraw v. Kerr, 23 Colo.App. 163, 128 P. 870; Longfellow v. Vernon, 57 Ind.App. 611, 105 N.E. 178; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255, 77 N.W. 813, 87 Minn. 197, 91 N.W. 487; Sawyer v. Berthold, 116 Minn. 441, 134 N.W. 120; Tomer v. Aiken, 126 Iowa 114, 101 N.W. 769; 22 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 800; 30 Cyc. 1573; 3 Wharton & S. Med. Jur. § 466; Whitesell v. Hill, 37 L.R.A. 831, note.

A physician who has given his patient the benefit of his best judgment is not liable for negligence, even though his judgment was erroneous. Brydges v. Cunningham, 69 Wash. 8, 124 P. 132; Coombs v. King, 107 Me. 376, 78 A. 468, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1121, 3 N. C. C. A. 167; Barfield v. South Highlands Infirmary, 191 Ala. 553, 68 So. 30; Williams v. Poppleton, 3 Ore. 139; Tefft v. Wilcox, 6 Kan. 46; Staloch v. Holm, 100 Minn. 276, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 712, 111 N.W. 264; Luka v. Lowrie, 171 Mich. 122, 41 L.R.A.(N.S.) 290, 136 N.W. 1106; Spain v. Burch, 169 Mo.App. 94, 154 S.W. 172; 22 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 804; 30 Cyc. 1578; 3 Wharton & S. Med. Jur. 501.

A physician on the ground and in charge of the case may use any one of two or more equally approved methods of treatment. De Long v. Delaney, 206 Pa. 226, 55 A. 965; Long v. Austin, 153 N.C. 508, 69 S.E. 500; Cozine v. Moore, 159 Iowa 472, 141 N.W. 424; Lorenz v. Booth, 84 Wash. 550, 147 P. 31; McClarin v. Grenzfelder, 147 Mo.App. 478, 126 S.W. 817; Spain v. Burch, 169 Mo.App. 94, 154 S.W. 172; Miller v. Toles, 183 Mich. 252, L.R.A.1915C, 595, 150 N.W. 118; Marchand v. Bellin, 158 Wis. 184, 147 N.W. 1033; Williams v. Poppleton, 3 Ore. 139; Pepke v. Grace Hospital, 130 Mich. 493, 90 N.W. 278; Hesse v. Knippel, 1 Mich. N. P. 109; Hallam v. Means, 82 Ill. 379, 25 Am. Rep. 328; 3 Wharton & S. Med. Jur. 501; Leighton v. Sargent, 27 N.H. 460, 59 Am. Dec. 388; Wood v. Barker, 49 Mich. 295, 13 N.W. 597; Wurdemann v. Barnes, 92 Wis. 206, 66 N.W. 111; Tomer v. Aiken, 126 Iowa 114, 101 N.W. 769; Van Skike v. Potter, 53 Neb. 28, 73 N.W. 295; Pelky v. Palmer, 109 Mich. 561, 67 N.W. 561; Hathorn v. Richmond, 48 Vt. 557; Boon v. Murphy, 108 N.C. 187, 12 S.E. 1032; Boom v. Reed, 69 Hun, 426, 23 N.Y.S. 421; 30 Cyc. 1576; 22 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 803; Adams v. Henry, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 831, note; Ebner v. Mackey, 51 L.R.A. 298, note.

Where the injury of which complaint is made is the result of the mutual and concurring negligence or carelessness of both patient and physician, there can be no recovery. Whitesell v. Hill, Iowa , 66 N.W. 894; McGraw v. Kerr, 23 Colo.App. 163, 128 P. 870; Young v. Mason, 8 Ind.App. 264, 35 N.E. 521; Geiselman v. Scott, 25 Ohio St. 86; Chamberlain v. Porter, 9 Minn. 260, Gil. 244; Becker v. Janinski, 15 N.Y.S. 675; 30 Cyc. 1579; 22 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 805; 3 Wharton & S. Med. Jur. 508; Potter v. Warner, 91 Pa. 362, 36 Am. Rep. 668.

Plaintiff suffered no pain, sickness, or weakness which was not the natural and probable result of her condition, and which would not have been almost certain to follow, regardless of any known method of treatment, and in view of this the jury should not have been permitted to speculate the defendant into responsibility. Piles v. Hughes, 10 Iowa 579; Dye v. Corbin, 59 W.Va. 266, 53 S.E. 147; Staloch v. Holm, 100 Minn. 276, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 712, 111 N.W. 264; 22 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 800.

In such...