Johnson v. Borland
| Decision Date | 08 April 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 24.,24. |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. BORLAND. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Oakland County; Joseph F. Sanford, judge.
Action by Minerva Bell Johnson, administratrix of the estate of Arthur LaVere Johnson, deceased, against A. Borland, a physician, for malpractice. From an order of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.
Order set aside, and case remanded for trial.
Before the Entire Bench.
Edward A. Simmons, of Detroit, for appellant.
Humphreys Springstun, of Detroit, for appellee.
In an amended declaration Minerva Bell Johnson, plaintiff and administratrix of the estate of Arthur LaVere Johnson, deceased, claims damages from defendant A. Borland, a doctor of medicine, for malpractice. She claims that decedent on the 5th day of March, 1943, was arrested while he was ‘sick and ill’ alongside his automobile on a road near Pontiac, Michigan; that he was taken to the county jail; that there he had all the appearance of being a sick man; that a person on the premises begged the officers to call a doctor for decedent because he was sick, and told them that he had known the deceased for over seventeen years and knew that he was not a drinking man. The decedent had spasms, was groaning, his tongue was hanging out and he gave every evidence of being seriously ill. Defendant, a practicing physician, was called to the jail by an officer of the county to treat decedent. It is alleged that he disregarded his duty in both his first examination of the deceased and in a second examination made several hours later in failing to properly diagnose the condition of the plaintiff; that defendant so unskillfully, negligently and ignorantly conducted himself that decedent died at or about 1:45 a. m. of the day following his arrest; and that this was the direct result of the ignorance, unskillfulness and negligent manner in which defendant conducted himself in diagnosing the illness of decedent as drunkenness. An autopsy and a chemical analysis of the vital organs of decedent at the post mortem revealed that there was no alcohol in the body of decedent,but that there was ‘(1) Complete coronary occlusion of the descending left branch; (2) terminal dilation of the heart; (3) chronic fibrous myocarditis with brown atrophy; (4) acute terminal pulmonary edema; (5) a small hemorrhage in the right cerebral lobe.’
Plaintiff further alleges that on the two occasions when Dr. Borland visited decedent, he spent only about four or five minutes each time and did not properly examine him. Plaintiff states that she is the wife of decedent; that the deceased is survived by his widow, two brothers and four sisters; that because of Dr. Borland's negligence decedent suffered great and unnecessary pain and anguish; and that plaintiff in her representative capacity has been damaged in the sum of $100,000, as the result of defendant's negligent and ignorant conduct.
Defendant by his attorney filed an answer in which he included a motion to dismiss. He denies most of the allegations in the declaration and asks that it be dismissed on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action either as a matter of fact or as a matter of law; that it is inadequate and insufficient, and is an attempt to split causes of action; and that the declaration in its amended form is defective in the same respects as the original declaration which plaintiff was permitted to amend. He moved that the declaration be stricken from the files with costs to defendant.
The trial judge found that the duty of the physician was properly pleaded and that the averments as to breach of that duty were complete. It was his opinion, however, that the pleadings afforded no basis for the assessment of any damages, for which reason it would be useless to proceed with a trial. He therefore entered an order granting defendant's motion to dismiss.
In determining whether the declaration sets forth a cause of action, all material allegations properly pleaded therein must be accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, mere conclusions of the pleader not being given force and effect. Prawdzik v. City of Grand Rapids, 313 Mich. 376, 21 N.W.2d 168, 165 A.L.R. 1165. While there is no question but that the amended declaration is ineptly drawn, it does contain sufficient allegations to show the alleged malpractice and enable defendant to properly prepare his defense. The rule is stated in Hanselman v. Carstens, 60 Mich. 187, 27 N.W. 18, the syllabus of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. BOARD OF HOSPITAL MANAGERS, Docket No. 205025.
...nonstandard instruction is inconsistent with Michigan law as set forth in SJI2d 30.01 and numerous cases such as Johnson v. Borland, 317 Mich. 225, 231, 26 N.W.2d 755 (1947), wherein the Supreme Court "`The law is well settled that a patient who is treated by a physician is entitled to a th......
-
Wheatley v. Heideman
...like circumstances and in like localities. Wilson v. Corbin, 241 Iowa 593, 597, 41 N.W.2d 702, 705, and citations; Johnson v. Borland, 317 Mich. 225, 26 N.W.2d 755, 757; 70 C.J.S. Physicians and Surgeons § 48d, p. 960. See also Van Sickle v. Doolittle, 173 Iowa 727, 155 N.W. 1007; Josselyn ......
-
Stowers v. Wolodzko
...has been consented to by a wife, the husband must pay for it. These cases are, therefore, not on point. Likewise, Johnson v. Borland (1947), 317 Mich. 225, 26 N.W.2d 757, and Wood v. Vroman (1921), 215 Mich. 449, 184 N.W. 520, are not on point. In Johnson v. Borland (a malpractice action), ......
-
Cox v. Bd of Hosp. Mgrs. City of Flint
... ... In Johnson v Corbet, 423 Mich 304, 324-325; 377 NW2d 713 (1985), the Court opined that trial courts had become accustomed to using the SJI, and that the "strict ... " care in the nonstandard instruction is inconsistent with Michigan law as set forth in SJI2d 30.01 and numerous cases such as Johnson v Borland, 317 Mich 225, 231; 26 NW2d 755 (1947), wherein the Supreme Court reiterated: ... The law is well settled that a patient who is ... ...