Henslin v. Wheaton

• Citation: 97 N.W. 882,91 Minn. 219
• Decision Date: 08 January 1904
• Docket Number: 13,618 - (149)
• Parties: WILLIAM HENSLIN v. CHARLES A. WHEATON and Others
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

97 N.W. 882

91 Minn. 219

WILLIAM HENSLIN v. CHARLES A. WHEATON and Others

Nos. 13,618 - (149)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

January 8, 1904

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Orr, J., denying a motion for a new trial. Reversed.

SYLLABUS

Physician -- Malpractice.

In an action against a physician and surgeon for negligence and unskillfulness in applying to plaintiff's body the device known as "Roentgen's X-Rays" for the purpose of locating a foreign substance thought to be in his lungs, it is held that the rule of liability is the same as that applied in other actions for malpractice, and one of ordinary care and prudence.

Evidence -- Same School of Medicine.

A physician who applies the X-rays, not for medical purposes but to locate a foreign substance in the body of his patient is not entitled to have the question of his care and skill in applying it determined by the opinions of physicians of his own school. Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255, distinguished.

S. C. Olmstead and Charles H. Taylor, for appellant.

C.D. & Thos. D. O'Brien, for respondents.

OPINION

BROWN, J.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence and unskillfulness unskillfulness of defendants. The action was dismissed on the trial in the court below, and the plaintiff appealed from an order denying a new trial.

The facts are as follows: Plaintiff, under the impression that he had inhaled into his lungs the gold crown of one of his teeth, went to defendants, who are practicing physicians and surgeons, for medical advice and treatment. He informed one of defendants of his trouble -- the fact that he had inhaled the gold crown -- and was anxious to know what could be done to relieve him. For the purpose of locating the crown, if anywhere in his lungs, defendants applied the X-rays to his person. He was exposed to this device on several different occasions, one or two skiagraphs being taken; but the efforts to locate the crown by this method were unsuccessful. Plaintiff suffered no particular inconvenience from the fact that it was in his lungs, but he was anxious to have it located, and, if possible, removed. About two weeks subsequent to the application of the X-rays to his person there appeared upon his back what is termed an "X-ray burn." This was very painful, and did not immediately yield to medical treatment, or become wholly healed for considerable time, though it appears to have been wholly healed at the time of the trial of the action. On the theory and claim that defendants were negligent and unskillful in applying the X-rays to his person, this action was brought to recover damages.

This is the first case to come before us involving alleged negligence on the part of physicians in applying the recently discovered X-rays, and no rule of care in such cases has been laid down. But there can be no doubt that the rule applicable to the care and skill required of physicians toward their patients in cases applies. That rule was stated in Martin v. Courtney, 87 Minn. 197, 91 N.W. 487, in the following language: "The legal obligation of the physician to his patient, where his conduct is questioned in an action of this character, demands of him no more than the exercise of such reasonable care and skill as is usually given by physicians or surgeons in good standing." The rule is one of ordinary care and prudence, and the question presented in the case at bar is whether the evidence received and that offered on the trial tended to show a failure on the part of defendants to exercise such care.

Plaintiff testified in support of the allegations of the complaint that the exposure of his person to the X-rays was made for too long a period of time, and that the tube or bulb through which the rays are generated was placed too close to his...