Martin v. Courtney
Decision Date | 12 January 1899 |
Citation | 77 N.W. 813,75 Minn. 255 |
Parties | MARTIN v. COURTNEY. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Crow Wing county; G. W. Holland, Judge.
Action by Margaret K. Martin, administratrix of the estate of Joseph A. Martin, against Walter Courtney. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order refusing a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed.
1. In an action for malpractice, a physician or surgeon is entitled to have his treatment of his patient tested by the rules and principles of the school of medicine to which he belongs.
2. The question of the competency of a witness the testify as an expert is one exclusively for the court, and all the evidence as to his competency should be received and considered by the court before permitting the witness to testify.
3. In this case the preponderance of the evidence against the verdict was so great that it was an abuse of discretion not to grant a new trial, and submit the case to another jury. How & Bulter and McClenahan & Mantor, for appellant.
F. D. Larrabee and Frank M. Nye, for respondent.
The defendant is a physician and surgeon, who has been for a number of years in charge of the Northern Pacific Sanitarium or Hospital at Brainerd, in the capacity of chief surgeon. This action was brought for alleged malpractice, causing the death of plaintiff's husband. On May 24, 1895, the deceased, an employé of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, had the toes of one foot crushed by a car wheel running over them. The injured parts were amputated at Superior, Wis., and the next day he was brought to Brainerd, and placed in the hospital, under the treatment of the defendant, where he remained until July 16th. During that time his wound healed gradually, but very slowly, indicating that he had a low degree of power to resist or throw off disease. By the date last named the wound had all healed up except a small spot about the size of the end of an ordinary lead pencil. The defendant then advised the deceased to leave the hospital, and return to his home, which was in Brainerd, but to come to the hospital every day or two to have his foot examined and treated. The deceased followed this advice. The defendant, removing all the other dressings, put some collodium on the spot which had not healed up, and a gauze sock on his foot. The evidence does not show the character of this gauze, but some things crop out which seem to imply that it was iodoform gauze. The deceased then went to his home, where he remained during the remainder of the summer, but going to the hospital periodically, as directed, to have his foot examined and treated. For a time the wound seemed to be healing satisfactorily, but about the middle of September it gave signs of breaking out again, and the foot assumed a somewhat reddish color almost up to the ankle, indicating, as we think the evidence tended to show, that the would was in a somewhat septic condition, and that the foot was more or less infected as far as the reddish appearance extended; but defendant testified that he believed and thought that the reddish appearance was a slight irritation of the skin, caused by the iodoform gauze used in dressing. On September 16th, upon the advice of the defendant, he returned to the hospital, where another operation was performed by amputating an additional quarter of an inch of the foot. The patient, however, gradually grew worse, and finally died of sepsis, or blood poisoning, on the 23d of October, the disease spreading very rapidly towards the last. Speaking generally, the only respects in which the defendant's treatment is complained of are: First, that when the deceased left the hospital, in July, and thereafter, the wound was not sufficiently protected from infection by septic germs; and, second, that the second amputation should have been made at the ankle, so as to remove the entire infected district.
Upon the trial the plaintiff was called as a witness in her own behalf, and testified as to the conditions and symptoms which her husband exhibited from time to time while under the care of the defendant, and as to the course of treatment followed by the defendant and his assistant. The plaintiff then called Dr. Camp, a physician and surgeon, who knew the deceased in his lifetime, and had seen him in his last sickness; but he-evidently to the suprise of counsel-fully approved of defendant's treatment as correct and proper. The plaintiff next called as an expert witness Dr. Gray, a physician and surgeon belonging to what is known as the homeopathic school of medicine, and proposed to have him give his opinion, based upon the plaintiff's testimony, whether defendant's treatment of the case was proper. Defendant belongs to what is known as the allopathic or regular school of medicine, and was entitled to have his treatment tested by the rules and principles of that school, and not of some other school. Nelson v. Harrington, 72 Wis. 591, 40 N. W. 228;Patten v. Wiggin, 51 Me. 595. Objection having been made on this ground to the competency of Dr. Gray as an expert, he, on his preliminary examination, testified that there was a decided difference between the rules and principles of the two schools as respects the ‘practice of medicine,’ but not as respects surgery. When inquired of as to whether the two schools differed as to their treatment of sepsis, his testimony was, as nearly as we can understand it, that they have the same rules in regard to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McAlinden v. St. Maries Hospital Ass'n
...Lumber Co., 22 Idaho 782, 128 P. 546; Dougherty v. Soll, 70 Wash. 407, 126 P. 924; Hill v. Shaw, 69 Ore. 460, 137 P. 229; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255, 77 N.W. 813; MacKenzie v. Carman, 103 A.D. 246, 92 N.Y.S. Wood v. Wyeth, 106 A.D. 21, 94 N.Y.S. 360; English v. Free, 205 Pa. 624, 55 A......
-
State v. Smith
...(State v. Hazzard (Wash.), 134 P. 514; Force v. Gregory, 63 Conn. 167, 38 Am. St. 371, 27 A. 1116, 22 L. R. A. 343; Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255, 77 N.W. 813; Nelson v. Harrington, 72 Wis. 591, 7 Am. St. 900, N.W. 228, 1 L. R. A. 719; Patten v. Wiggin, 51 Me. 594, 81 Am. Dec. 593.) A ph......
-
Smith v. Beard
... ... that the defendant's act was negligent. In Kruger v ... McCaughey, 149 Ill.App. 440; Martin v ... Courtney, 75 Minn. 255, 77 N.W. 813, the court, ... notwithstanding a conflict in the evidence, set aside a ... verdict as contrary to the ... ...
-
Hager v. Clark
...8 Colo.App. 143, 45 P. 234; Langford v. Jones, 18 Ore. 307, 22 P. 1064; Marchand v. Bellin, 158 Wis. 184, 147 N.W. 1033; Martin v. Courtney, 87 Minn. 197, 91 N.W. 487; Adolay v. Miller, 60 Ind.App. 656, 111 N.E. Trial courts ought to grant a new trial whenever their superior and more compre......