Howell v. Jackson
Decision Date | 03 July 1941 |
Docket Number | 28816. |
Citation | 16 S.E.2d 45,65 Ga.App. 422 |
Parties | HOWELL et al. v. JACKSON. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied July 23, 1941.
Syllabus by the Court.
Bryan Middlebrooks & Carter and Yantis C. Mitchell, all of Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
Dorsey Stubbs & Dorsey, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Janet Lee Jackson, age five, by Mrs. E. T. Jackson, her mother as next friend, brought this action against Dr. J. L. Howell and Dr. J. T. Hutchins, for personal injury alleged to have been caused by the negligent and incorrect setting of plaintiff's arm, leaving the arm weak, disfigured, at an awkward angle, and subjecting her to intense pain and suffering. As a result of the improper setting, the plaintiff, realizing the condition of the arm and probable permanent disfigurement and loss of use thereof, through other physicians attempted to have the defects and disfigurements corrected by resetting and an operation necessitating the plaintiff to be put under a general anesthetic on four separate occassions after the arm had been originally set. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and the defendants excepted to the overruling of their motion for new trial.
Taking the evidence in its most favorable light to upholding the verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the jury were authorized to find that Janet Lee Jackson had her arm broken and was taken by her mother to Dr. Howell's office in the Medical Arts Building in Atlanta, Georgia. While waiting for Dr. Howell to come a nurse took an X-ray of the arm, which was of course before the arm was set. Dr. Howell took the girl and her mother to the Lakewood clinic from the Medical Arts Building, and there Dr. Howell gave the anesthetic and Dr. Hutchins, his partner, set the arm. Three weeks after the setting of the arm Mrs. Jackson complained to Dr. Howell about the look of the arm, but no X-rays were taken then, but at the end of five weeks after the setting of the arm, she demanded an X-ray picture of it and Dr. Howell took her back to the Lakewood clinic and made the X-ray. There were only two X-rays taken by the defendants, according to the testimony of the child's mother, one just before the setting, the other five weeks thereafter. The child's arm was broken in or near the elbow, and with reference thereto Dr. M. T. Myers, an expert witness for the plaintiff,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sullivan v. Henry
...a presumption of want of proper care, skill or diligence. See Branch v. Anderson, 47 Ga.App. 858, 860, 171 S.E. 771; Howell v. Jackson, 65 Ga.App. 422, 423(1), 16 S.E.2d 45; Hayes v. Brown, 108 Ga.App. 360, 363(1), 133 S.E.2d However, in the recent whole court case of Blount v. Moore, 159 G......
-
Anderson v. Crippen, 45027
...is that given by physicians or surgeons as expert witnesses. Pilgrim v. Landham, 63 Ga.App. 451(4), 11 S.E.2d 420; Howell v. Jackson, 65 Ga.App. 422, 16 S.E.2d 45; 70 C.J.S. Physicians and Surgeons § 62, 1006-1008; 41 Am.Jur. 238, § 128.' Shea v. Phillips, supra, at page 271, 98 S.E.2d at p......
-
Hughes v. Malone
...the parameters of acceptable professional conduct, a significant deviation from which would constitute malpractice. Howell v. Jackson, 65 Ga.App. 422, 16 S.E.2d 45; Pilgrim v. Landham, 63 Ga.App. 451(4), 11 S.E.2d 420. See Dorf v. Relles, 355 F.2d 488 (7th Cir.); Brown v. Gitlin, 19 Ill.App......
-
Harrell v. Lusk
... ... to set up and use any arbitrary or artificial standard of measurement that a jury may wish to apply.' [Cit.]" (Emphasis in original.) Howell v. Jackson, 65 Ga.App. 422, 423(1), 16 S.E.2d 45 (1941). "The reason for this requirement is simply that a jury cannot rationally apply negligence ... ...