Holt v. Ten Broeck, No. 19938[90].

CourtMinnesota Supreme Court
Citation134 Minn. 458,159 N.W. 1073
Docket NumberNo. 19938[90].
PartiesHOLT v. TEN BROECK.
Decision Date24 November 1916

134 Minn. 458
159 N.W. 1073

HOLT
v.
TEN BROECK.

No. 19938[90].

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 24, 1916.


Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; William C. Leary, Judge.

Action by Mrs. S. E. Holt against Louis L. Ten Broeck. From an order denying an alternative motion for judgment or for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.


Syllabus by the Court

The evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding that an injury to the person of the plaintiff was the result of a burn coming from the taking of an X-ray.

There was evidence having a tendency to prove the defendant negligent in the operation of the X-ray apparatus; and it being wholly under his control, and the injury not being one naturally resulting when the apparatus was properly used, the rule of res ipsa loquitur applies. This rule does not shift the burden of proof to the defendant but permits the jury to draw an inference of negligence from the result.

The X-ray was not applied for curative purposes. In determining negligence in the operation of an X-ray machine the test is that of ordinary care; and it is not a matter of importance whether one operating it is a physician.

One qualified to testify as an expert in the use of X-ray machines may from the result produced give his opinion whether the machine was operated in a proper manner.

The verdict is not excessive.


[159 N.W. 1074]

Chas. G. Laybourn, of Minneapolis, and C. D. O'Brien, of St. Paul, for appellant.

Donald G. Hughes and C. B. Elliott, both of Minneapolis, for respondent.


DIBELL, C.

Action to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in taking an X-ray. There was a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals from the order denying his alternative motion for judgment or for a new trial.

[1] 1. In February, 1915, the plaintiff was under treatment for some trouble in her hip supposed to be a fracture or dislocation. Her attending physician desired an X-ray. The defendant, a regularly licensed physician, took it. A few weeks afterwards a sore developed on her hip which it is claimed was the result of an X-ray burn. The evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding that the X-ray caused the sore. The testimony of the plaintiff is that there was none before. It was at the point of the exposure. There was medical testimony having a tendency to prove that it came from an X-ray burn. The question was for the jury.

[2] 2. To recover it was necessary that the plaintiff prove negligence in the defendant. There is little direct evidence of negligence. The plaintiff claims that during the progress of the taking the defendant made some exclamation to the effect that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • Whitmore v. Herrick, No. 38636.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 6, 1928
    ...Shannon, 92 Kan. 801, 142 P. 967, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 338;Ryan v. St. Paul Union Depot Co., 168 Minn. 287, 210 N. W. 32;Holt v. Ten Broeck, 134 Minn. 458, 159 N. W. 1073, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 256;Evans v. Clapp (Mo. App.) 231 S. W. 79; 20 Ruling Case Law, 187, § 156; 21 Ruling Case Law, 407; Sauer......
  • Whitmore v. Herrick, 38636
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 6, 1928
    ...741); George v. Shannon, 92 Kan. 801 (142 P. 967); Ryan v. St. Paul Union Depot Co., 168 Minn. 287 (210 N.W. 32); Holt v. Ten Broeck, 134 Minn. 458 (159 N.W. 1073); Evans v. Clapp (Mo. App.), 231 S.W. 79; 20 Ruling Case Law 187, Section 156; 21 Ruling Case Law 407; Sauers v. Smits, 49 Wash.......
  • Sullivan v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., No. 24052.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • November 21, 1924
    ...law, be destroyed by defendant's evidence. Keithley v. Hettinger, 133 Minn. 36, 157 N. W. 897, Ann. Cas. 1918D, 376;Holt v. Ten Broeck, 134 Minn. 458, 159 N. W. 1073, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 256;Manning v. C. G. W. Ry. Co., 135 Minn. 229, 160 N. W. 787;McGillivray v. G. N. Ry. Co., 138 Minn. 278, ......
  • Sullivan v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., No. 24052.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • November 21, 1924
    ...law, be destroyed by defendant's evidence. Keithley v. Hettinger, 133 Minn. 36, 157 N. W. 897, Ann. Cas. 1918D, 376; Holt v. Ten Broeck, 134 Minn. 458, 159 N. W. 1073, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 256; Manning v. C. G. W. Ry. Co., 135 Minn. 229, 160 N. W. 787; McGillivray v. G. N. Ry. Co., 138 Minn. 27......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • Whitmore v. Herrick, No. 38636.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 6, 1928
    ...Shannon, 92 Kan. 801, 142 P. 967, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 338;Ryan v. St. Paul Union Depot Co., 168 Minn. 287, 210 N. W. 32;Holt v. Ten Broeck, 134 Minn. 458, 159 N. W. 1073, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 256;Evans v. Clapp (Mo. App.) 231 S. W. 79; 20 Ruling Case Law, 187, § 156; 21 Ruling Case Law, 407; Sauer......
  • Whitmore v. Herrick, 38636
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 6, 1928
    ...741); George v. Shannon, 92 Kan. 801 (142 P. 967); Ryan v. St. Paul Union Depot Co., 168 Minn. 287 (210 N.W. 32); Holt v. Ten Broeck, 134 Minn. 458 (159 N.W. 1073); Evans v. Clapp (Mo. App.), 231 S.W. 79; 20 Ruling Case Law 187, Section 156; 21 Ruling Case Law 407; Sauers v. Smits, 49 Wash.......
  • Sullivan v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., No. 24052.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • November 21, 1924
    ...law, be destroyed by defendant's evidence. Keithley v. Hettinger, 133 Minn. 36, 157 N. W. 897, Ann. Cas. 1918D, 376;Holt v. Ten Broeck, 134 Minn. 458, 159 N. W. 1073, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 256;Manning v. C. G. W. Ry. Co., 135 Minn. 229, 160 N. W. 787;McGillivray v. G. N. Ry. Co., 138 Minn. 278, ......
  • Sullivan v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., No. 24052.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • November 21, 1924
    ...law, be destroyed by defendant's evidence. Keithley v. Hettinger, 133 Minn. 36, 157 N. W. 897, Ann. Cas. 1918D, 376; Holt v. Ten Broeck, 134 Minn. 458, 159 N. W. 1073, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 256; Manning v. C. G. W. Ry. Co., 135 Minn. 229, 160 N. W. 787; McGillivray v. G. N. Ry. Co., 138 Minn. 27......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT