Hurley v. Eddingfield
| Decision Date | 04 April 1901 |
| Docket Number | 19,154 |
| Citation | 59 N.E. 1058,156 Ind. 416 |
| Parties | Hurley, Administrator, v. Eddingfield |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Montgomery Circuit Court.
Affirmed.
G. D Hurley, H. D. Van Cleave and D. Kennedy, for appellant.
M. E Clodfelter, H. N. Fine and E. M. Spruham, for appellee.
Appellant sued appellee for $ 10,000 damages for wrongfully causing the death of his intestate. The court sustained appellee's demurrer to the complaint; and this ruling is assigned as error.
The material facts alleged may be summarized thus: At and for years before decedent's death appellee was a practicing physician at Mace in Montgomery county, duly licensed under the laws of the State. He held himself out to the public as a general practitioner of medicine. He had been decedent's family physician. Decedent became dangerously ill and sent for appellee. The messenger informed appellee of decedent's violent sickness, tendered him his fees for his services, and stated to him that no other physician was procurable in time and that decedent relied on him for attention. No other physician was procurable in time to be of any use, and decedent did rely on appellee for medical assistance. Without any reason whatever, appellee refused to render aid to decedent. No other patients were requiring appellee's immediate service, and he could have gone to the relief of decedent if he had been willing to do so. Death ensued, without decedent's fault, and wholly from appellee's wrongful act.
The alleged wrongful act was appellee's refusal to enter into a contract of employment. Counsel do not contend that, before the enactment of the law regulating the practice of medicine, physicians were bound to render professional service to every one who applied. Wharton on Neg., § 731. The act regulating the practice of medicine provides for a board of examiners, standards of qualification, examinations, licenses to those found qualified, and penalties for practicing without license. Acts 1897, p. 255; Acts 1899, p. 247. The act is a preventive, not a compulsive, measure. In obtaining the State's license (permission) to practice medicine, the State does not require, and the licensee does not engage, that he will practice at all or on other terms than he may choose to accept. Counsel's analogies, drawn from the obligations to the public on the part of innkeepers, common carriers, and the like, are beside the mark.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Flint Water Cases
...company had no duty to aid passenger who was stuck in train car at hazardously low temperatures for over 11 hours); Hurley v. Eddingfield , 156 Ind. 416, 59 N.E. 1058 (1901) (no liability for physician who "[w]ithout any reason whatever ... refused to render aid" to a dangerously ill patien......
-
Brodersen v. Sioux Valley Memorial Hosp., C 93-4011.
...does not have duty to treat patient it deems unacceptable and need not give reason for its refusal of treatment); Hurley v. Eddingfield, 156 Ind. 416, 59 N.E. 1058, 1058 (1901) (concluding that although defendant was only available physician, he was free to refuse treatment). The general ab......
-
Mayor v. Azar
..., Sidwell v. McVay , 282 P.2d 756, 758-59 (Okla. 1955) (failure to stop a child from playing with explosives); Hurley v. Eddingfield , 156 Ind. 416, 416, 59 N.E. 1058 (1901) (failure of physician to respond to a call for aid). Whatever the virtues or vices of failing to act, it is clear tha......
-
Stockberger v. U.S.
...would not be actionable. E.g., Mullin v. Municipal City of South Bend, 639 N.E.2d 278, 284 (Ind. 1994); Hurley v. Eddingfield, 156 Ind. 416, 59 N.E. 1058 (1901); Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 1112, 119 Cal. Rptr.2d 709, 45 P.3d 1171, 1182-83 (2002); City of Douglasville v. Quee......
-
Assisted reproductive technologies
...new division to focus on the “conscience” of healthcare workers who refuse to treat certain patients. 376 374. See Hurley v. Eddingfield, 59 N.E. 1058, 1058 (Ind. 1901) (holding that physicians have no common law duty to treat). 375. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 300a-7(d) (West, Westlaw through Pub. ......
-
Mark L. Rienzi, the Constitutional Right Not to Kill
...note 149, at 972–73. None were charged with a crime. See id. at 985.A similar rule exists in tort law. See, e.g., Hurley v. Eddingfield, 59 N.E. 1058, 1058 (Ind. 1901) (holding that physician was under no obligation to help a dying man when the physician had refused aid to the man “[w]ithou......
-
American diagnostic radiology moves offshore: is this field riding the "Internet wave" into a regulatory abyss?
...v. Pope, 901 S.W.2d 420, 424 (Tex. 1995). (216) Salas v. Gamboa, 760 S.W.2d 838, 841 (Tex. App 1988). (217) See Hurley v. Eddingfield, 59 N.E. 1058 (Ind. (218) See Oritz v. Shah, 905 S.W.2d 609, 611 (Tex. App. 1995). (219) Weaver v. Univ. of Mich. Bd. of Regents, 506 N.W.2d 264, 365-66 (Mic......