Inglis v. Morton

• Decision Date: 18 January 1918
• Docket Number: 14357.
• Citation: 99 Wash. 570,169 P. 962
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: INGLIS v. MORTON.

169 P. 962

99 Wash. 570

INGLIS v. MORTON.

No. 14357.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 18, 1918

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; M. L. Clifford Judge.

Action by W. M. Inglis against A. G. Morton. From a judgment for plaintiff for an insufficient amount, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

P. L Pendleton and H. P. Burdick, both of Tacoma, for appellant.

Bates &amp Peterson, of Tacoma, for respondent.

MORRIS J.

Appellant alleged in her complaint that she contracted with respondent to install gold crowns upon teeth both in her upper and lower jaws for $175; that in accordance with her agreement she paid respondent $75, the balance to be paid upon the completion of the work; that thereupon respondent entered upon the performance of the work, and that without her knowledge and consent, and in violation of the agreement, he cut off 'four of her teeth at the roots and attempted to construct bridge work thereon,' but that the work was so unskillfully and negligently performed as to be of no value to the appellant. Learning these facts prior to the completion of the work, she demanded of respondent that he complete his work in accordance with the contract and remedy the defects claimed to exist in the work already done or repay her the $75, all of which was refused. Then follow allegations of malpractice and a demand for judgment for general damages together with the $75 as special damages. At the conclusion of appellant's case in chief the lower court took the case away from the jury upon the question of malpractice, and submitted only the issue as to whether or not respondent refused to continue the work at appellant's demand, thus entitling her to the recovery of the $75 as special damage. The jury having so found, and judgment being entered, the plaintiff appeals.

It is clear that appellant first submitted herself to respondent for the purpose of having gold crowns placed in her mouth; it is equally clear from appellant's own testimony that after respondent had commenced his work she consented to a change from gold crowns to what is known in the record as a 'Richmond bridge,' necessitating the grinding down of the teeth. There is no testimony in the record that this work was unskillfully on negligently performed, or that it to any degree contributed to the conditions complained of by appellant.

Accepting appellant's testimony as to the condition of her gums and teeth, the law is well settled that a bad result is of itself no evidence of negligence in actions of this character, neither can she predicate her recovery upon the rule of res ipsa loquitur, such rule having no application to a case like this. On these two propositions the law is clear. McGraw v. Kerr, 23 Colo. App. 163, 128 P. 870.

Appellant complains of a remark made by the trial judge in taking the malpractice feature of the case away from the jury to the effect that no doctor or dentist had substantiated her theory of malpractice. It may be conceded that in malpractice cases the case is made by the nature of the...