Loveland v. Nelson, Nos. 19

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the CourtFELLOWS
Citation209 N.W. 835,235 Mich. 623
PartiesLOVELAND v. NELSON. ALLEN v. SAME.
Docket Number20.,Nos. 19
Decision Date22 July 1926

235 Mich. 623
209 N.W. 835

LOVELAND
v.
NELSON.
ALLEN
v.
SAME.

Nos. 19, 20.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 22, 1926.


Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; Joseph A. Moynihan, judge.

Consolidated cases by Lula Ferguson Loveland and by Florence Allen against James A. Nelson. Judgments for defendant on directed verdicts, and plaintiffs bring error. Reversed, and new trial granted.

Argued before Entire Bench.

[209 N.W. 835]

Walter M. Nelson, of Detroit (Lawrence Brown, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellants.

Douglas, Barbour, Brown & Rogers, of Detroit, for appellee.


FELLOWS, J.

These cases were tried together, and were submitted in this court on one record, and will be disposed of in one opinion. Both plaintiffs were office employés at the Detroit Graphic Company's office in Detroit. Each wanted a wisdom tooth extracted. They went together at the noon hour to the office of defendant, a dentist in general practice. Miss Allen occupied the operating chair first. When the defendant injected the supposed anaesthetic fluid into the gum she experienced a burning sensation, which extended into her throat. It is her claim that the injection did not deaden the pain. The tooth was extracted, and her face commenced to swell immediately. Mrs Loveland experienced the same trouble in the extraction of her tooth. The after results to both ladies were the same. Their faces were badly swollen, so much so as to make it extremely difficult to take nourishment. There was an accumulation of pus and sloughing off of the membrane. Both suffered much pain, and were unable to work for some time. Both were under the care of physicians and other dentists, and both paid out considerable money for such services. These actions for malpractice resulted. At the close of plaintiffs' proofs, the trial judge directed a verdict for defendant on the ground that the testimony left the question of the proximate cause of plaintiffs' condition too conjectural to authorize

[209 N.W. 836]

the submission of the case to the jury, and that without adopting the rule res ipsa loquitur no negligence of defendant was established.

This court has not adopted the rule res ipsa loquitur, but this does not prevent a plaintiff making a case by circumstantial evidence. In Burghardt v. Detroit United Ry., 206 Mich. 545, 173 N. W. 360, 5 A. L. R. 1333, this court, with the citation of numerous sustaining authorities, said:

‘This court has not adopted the rule res ipsa loquitur; we have uniformly held that the happening of the accident alone is not evidence of negligence; and we...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Whetstine v. Moravec, No. 44945.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 2, 1940
    ...is not permissible in that state. Dunbar v. Adams, 283 Mich. 48, 276 N.W. 895. The court referred to that fact in Loveland v. Nelson, 235 Mich. 623, 209 N.W. 835, but stated that the court had uniformly held that negligence may be established by circumstantial evidence, and permitted a reco......
  • Whetstine v. Moravec, 44945.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 2, 1940
    ...rule is not permissible in that state. Dunbar v. Adams, 283 Mich. 48, 276 N.W. 895.The court referred to that fact in Loveland v. Nelson, 235 Mich. 623, 209 N.W. 835, but stated that the court had uniformly held that negligence may be established by circumstantial evidence, and permitted a ......
  • Whitmore v. Herrick, No. 38636.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 6, 1928
    ...110 Minn. 438, 126 N. W. 67; 2 Jones on Evidence, § 184, pp. 182 and 183; Johnson v. Marshall, 241 Ill. App. 80;Loveland v. Nelson, 235 Mich. 623, 209 N. W. 835;Holcomb v. Magee, 217 Ill. App. 272;Jones v. Tri-State Tel. & Tel. Co., 118 Minn. 217, 136 N. W. 741, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 485;......
  • Whitmore v. Herrick, 38636
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 6, 1928
    ...2 Jones Commentaries on Evidence [205 Iowa 624] (1913) 182, 183, Section 184; Johnson v. Marshall, 241 Ill.App. 80; Loveland v. Nelson, 235 Mich. 623 (209 N.W. 835); Holcomb v. Magee, 217 Ill.App. 272; Jones v. Tri-State Tel. & Tel. Co., 118 Minn. 217 (136 N.W. 741); George v. Shannon, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • Whetstine v. Moravec, No. 44945.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 2, 1940
    ...is not permissible in that state. Dunbar v. Adams, 283 Mich. 48, 276 N.W. 895. The court referred to that fact in Loveland v. Nelson, 235 Mich. 623, 209 N.W. 835, but stated that the court had uniformly held that negligence may be established by circumstantial evidence, and permitted a reco......
  • Whetstine v. Moravec, 44945.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 2, 1940
    ...rule is not permissible in that state. Dunbar v. Adams, 283 Mich. 48, 276 N.W. 895.The court referred to that fact in Loveland v. Nelson, 235 Mich. 623, 209 N.W. 835, but stated that the court had uniformly held that negligence may be established by circumstantial evidence, and permitted a ......
  • Whitmore v. Herrick, No. 38636.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 6, 1928
    ...110 Minn. 438, 126 N. W. 67; 2 Jones on Evidence, § 184, pp. 182 and 183; Johnson v. Marshall, 241 Ill. App. 80;Loveland v. Nelson, 235 Mich. 623, 209 N. W. 835;Holcomb v. Magee, 217 Ill. App. 272;Jones v. Tri-State Tel. & Tel. Co., 118 Minn. 217, 136 N. W. 741, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 485;Geor......
  • Whitmore v. Herrick, 38636
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 6, 1928
    ...2 Jones Commentaries on Evidence [205 Iowa 624] (1913) 182, 183, Section 184; Johnson v. Marshall, 241 Ill.App. 80; Loveland v. Nelson, 235 Mich. 623 (209 N.W. 835); Holcomb v. Magee, 217 Ill.App. 272; Jones v. Tri-State Tel. & Tel. Co., 118 Minn. 217 (136 N.W. 741); George v. Shannon, 92 K......
  • 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