Manzoni v. Hamlin
| Decision Date | 29 October 1964 |
| Citation | 348 Mass. 770,202 N.E.2d 264 |
| Parties | Elinore MANZONI et al. v. Edward HAMLIN, Jr. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John F. Dunn, Boston, for defendant.
John J. McNaught, Melrose, for plaintiffs.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, KIRK, and SPIEGEL, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
In this action of tort against a surgeon for malpractice, the plaintiff and her husband (who sued for consequential damages) had verdicts. The defendant's exceptions to the denial of his motion for directed verdicts bring the case here. There was evidence of several admissions made by the defendant. The medical evidence, apart from these admissions, was insufficient to take the case to the jury. But the admissions would warrant a finding that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the defendant's negligence. The defendant takes the position that in a malpractice case admissions, unless corroborated by expert testimony, ought not to be sufficient to take a case to the jury. Recognizing that our decisions are to the contrary, the defendant urges that we do not follow them. This we decline to do. The case at bar is governed in principle by Leary v. Keith, 256 Mass. 157, 158, 152 N.E. 245, Tully v. Mandell, 269 Mass. 307, 309, 168 N.E. 923, Zimmerman v. Litvich, 297 Mass. 91, 94, 7 N.E.2d 437, and Woronka v. Sewall, 320 Mass. 362, 365, 69 N.E.2d 581.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barrette v. Hight
...* is yours alone.'3 Because of the possible significance of an alleged admission of fault in malpractice cases (see e.g. Manzoni v. Hamlin, 348 Mass. 770, 202 N.E.2d 264) the jury obviously should consider carefully whether, in particular circumstances, thstimony concerning such an alleged ......
-
Collins v. Baron
...even if the jury would not have reached that result on the basis of the expert testimony before them. 2 See Manzoni v. Hamlin, 348 Mass. 770, 202 N.E.2d 264 (1964); Zimmerman v. Litvich, 297 Mass. 91, 94, 7 N.E.2d 437 (1937). See also Murphy v. Conway, 360 Mass. 746, 748-749 and n. 2, 277 N......
-
Zeller v. American Safety Razor Corp.
...that a surgeon should never twist or torque a surgical blade "so as to prevent the blade from breaking" (see Manzoni v. Hamlin, 348 Mass. 770, 202 N.E.2d 264 [1964]; Civitarese v. Gorney, 358 Mass. 652, 655-656, 266 N.E.2d 668 [1971] ), when taken in conjunction with the opinion of ASR's me......
-
Pfeiffer v. Salas
...Zimmerman v. Litvich, 297 Mass. 91, 93--94, 7 N.E.2d 437. Woronka v. Sewall, 320 Mass. 362, 365--367, 69 N.E.2d 581. Manzoni v. Hamlin, 348 Mass. 770, 202 N.E.2d 264. The judge was therefore required to submit to the jury for decision the question whether the defendant made the alleged admi......