Howard v. Mount Sinai Hospital, Inc., 271

Decision Date28 June 1974
Docket NumberNo. 271,271
PartiesFlorence HOWARD et el., Respondents, v. MT. SINAI HOSPITAL, INC., et al., Appellants.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen, Milwaukee, Frank A. Scherkenbach, Milwaukee, of counsel, for appellants.

Warshafsky, Rotter & Tarnoff, Milwaukee, for respondents.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

The opinion correctly states the law of this state. It represents no new departure from the position of Colla v. Mandella (1957), 1 Wis.2d 594, 85 N.W.2d 345, and Hass v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. (1970), 48 Wis.2d 321, 179 N.W.2d 885. Those cases hold, consistently with established negligence law of this court, that foreseeability of the particular harm is not an element of the determination of negligence. Although a specific injury may not be foreseen, subject to possible policy considerations, we will find liability if there is an unbroken chain of causation from the negligent act to the injury sustained and if the negligence is a substantial factor.

Even though there exists such an unbroken chain of causation, we will not find liability if the court concludes in the particular case that to allow recovery would be contrary to public policy.

Some of the various public policy factors that may be appropriately invoked to deny liability even in the face of an unbroken chain of causation were listed in Colla v. Mandella, supra, 1 Wis.2d at 599, 85 N.W.2d at 348:

'(T)he injury is (1) too remote from the negligence or (2) too 'wholly out of proportion to the culpability of the negligent tort-feasor', or (3) in retrospect it appears too highly extraordinary that the negligence should have brought about the harm, or (4) because allowance of recovery would place too unreasonable a burden upon users of the highway, or (5) be too likely to open the way to fraudulent claims, or (6) would 'enter a field that has no sensible or just stopping point.''

The policy factor relied upon in this particular case is analogous to number 4, because allowance of recovery would place too unreasonable a burden upon doctors and physicians.

There is no question of foreseeability in this case nor any question that the negligence of the physician was a substantial factor causing the cancer phobia, the existence of which is undisputed.

We hold that, under the circumstances of this particular case, it would be contrary to public policy to permit the physician to be liable for the cancer...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Coffey v. City of Milwaukee
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • November 30, 1976
    ...rests upon considerations of public policy.' See also: Howard v. Mt. Sinai Hospital, Inc., 63 Wis.2d 515, 519, 520, 217 N.W.2d 383, 219 N.W.2d 576 (1974); Padilla, supra, 56 Wis.2d 779, 203 N.W.2d 15; Colla v. Mandella, 1 Wis.2d 594, 599, 85 N.W.2d 345 (1957); Pfeifer v. Standard Gateway Th......
  • Ollerman v. O'Rourke Co., Inc., 77-305
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • February 7, 1980
    ...Ry. Co., 48 Wis.2d 321, 326-327, 179 N.W.2d 885 (1970); Howard v. Mt. Sinai Hospital, Inc., 63 Wis.2d 515, 518-519, 217 N.W.2d 383, 219 N.W.2d 576 (1974).30 For a discussion of pecuniary loss, that is, the invasion of interests of a financial or commercial character in the course of busines......
  • Skindzelewski v. Smith
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • June 18, 2020
    ...considerations. See, e.g., Howard v. Mt. Sinai Hospital, Inc., 63 Wis. 2d 515, 517-20, 217 N.W.2d 383 (1974), aff'd on rehearing 63 Wis.2d 515, 219 N.W.2d 576. ¶9 The elements of a legal malpractice claim are substantially the same as the elements comprising a general negligence claim. The ......
  • Petriello v. Kalman, s. 13814
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • June 19, 1990
    ...793, 180 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 154 N.E.2d 581 (1958); Howard v. Mt. Sinai Hospital, Inc., 63 Wis.2d 515, 519, 217 N.W.2d 383, aff'd, 63 Wis.2d 523a, 219 N.W.2d 576 (1974).6 The defendant objects to the following portion of the court's instructions to the jury: "Anxiety over future consequences of ......
  • 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