Menefee v. Alexander
Decision Date | 21 November 1899 |
Citation | 53 S.W. 653,107 Ky. 279 |
Parties | MENEFEE v. ALEXANDER. [1] |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Grant county.
"To be officially reported."
Action by Frank Menefee against J. B. Alexander to recover damages for malpractice. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
W. W Dickerson, for appellant.
Appellant filed this suit against appellee to recover damages for alleged malpractice by appellee as a physician in amputating his arm without proper care or skill, by reason of which, it is alleged, that he suffered great pain, and his arm was left in a very bad condition. Appellee pleaded, among other things, the one-year statute of limitation in bar of the action. Appellant demurred to this plea, and, his demurrer having been overruled, and judgment entered dismissing his petition, he has prosecuted this appeal.
The only question in the case is whether the one-year statute or the five-year statute applies to the action, as it is admitted that it is barred if the former, and not barred if the latter, applies to this class of cases. Section 2516 of the Kentucky Statutes is as follows: "An action for an injury to the person of the plaintiff, or of his wife, child ward, apprentice or servant, or for injuries to person cattle or stock, by railroads, or by any company or corporation; an action for malicious prosecution, conspiracy arrest, seduction, criminal conversation, or breach of promise of marriage; an action for libel or slander; an action for the escape of a prisoner, arrested or imprisoned on civil process, shall be commenced within one year next after the cause of action accrued and not thereafter." The question presented is whether the words, "an action for an injury to the person of the plaintiff," in this section, cover an action against a physician for negligence or want of skill in the treatment of a patient. In Newman on Pleading (page 404) it is said: So, in Bishop on Contracts (section 1416) it is said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Emrich v. Little Rock Traction & Electric Co.
...§ 4822; 35 Ark. 622; 50 Ark. 250; 62 Ark. 360; 67 Ark. 189; 68 Ark. 433; 86 F. 7; 60 S.W. 650; 71 Ala. 649; Bliss, Code Pl. §§ 4, 5, 9; 53 S.W. 653; Newman, Pl. 404; 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), 280; 190 Pa.St. 358; 8 Mackey, 67 Ill.App. 114; 20 Ill.App. 543; 90 Md. 315; 70 Minn. 50; 68......
-
Jenkins v. Best, 2006-CA-001277-MR.
...be an action for injury to the person, although great suffering or loss of health had resulted from it. Menefee v. Alexander, 107 Ky. 279, 53 S.W. 653, 654, 21 Ky.L.Rptr. 980 (1899)(emphasis Even as late as 1922, actions for violation of "any legal duty" would lie only if "the facts . . . c......
-
Common School District No. 18 v. Twin Falls Bank and Trust Co.
... ... KANSAS: Trousdale v. Amerman, 124 Kan. 614, ... 261 P. 826. (Conflicting with Kansas cases cited ... KENTUCKY: Menefee v. Alexander, 107 Ky. 279, ... 53 S.W. 653 (overruled in Howard v. Middlesborough ... Hospital Corp., supra); Western Union Tel. Co. v ... Witt, ... ...
-
Monroe v. Sarasota County School Bd.
...of St. Petersburg Health & Welfare Plan, 536 So.2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (accountant malpractice). 11. Compare Menefee v. Alexander, 107 Ky. 279, 53 S.W. 653 (1899) (holding an action for malpractice of a physician is contractual in nature) with Mullin v. Flanders, 73 Vt. 95, 50 A. 813 (19......