Miriam Mascheck, Inc. v. Mausner
| Decision Date | 25 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--1220,71--1220 |
| Citation | 264 So.2d 859 |
| Parties | MIRIAM MASCHECK, INC., a Florida corporation, and Miriam Maschek, Appellants, v. Ruth MAUSNER and Howard Mausner, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings and A. H. Toothman, Miami, for appellants.
Frates, Floyd, Pearson & Stewart and L. Edward McClellan, Jr., Miami, for appellees.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
Miriam Maschek, Inc. and Miriam Maschek, defendants below, seek review of an adverse jury verdict and final judgment in a case involving negligent treatment administered by a facial rejuvenator.
Appellants operate the Miriam Maschek Salon in Dade County, Florida and perform skin peeling and facial rejuvenation processes for their patients. Mrs. Ruth Mausner, plaintiff-appellee, sought appellants' services in order to achieve a more even skin coloring. As a result of the treatment, which included the application of the chemical phenol, Mrs. Mausner received severe chemical burns to her neck and upper chest area. The burns resulted in permanent scarring and a considerable psychological reaction. The case proceeded to trial and the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, Ruth Mausner, in the sum of $30,000 and for plaintiff-husband, Howard Mausner, in the sum of $5,000.
On appeal appellants argue two points: (1) the court's charge to the jury held appellant, Miriam Mascheck, a non-medical person, to the same standard of care as a medical doctor, and (2) that the jury was improperly instructed on the issue of informed consent.
Negligence is the failure to use that degree of care, diligence and skill that is one's legal duty to use in order to protect another person from injury. The degree of care required is ordinary and reasonable care according to a particular set of circumstances. The law, however, will demand from a person with knowledge, skill or intellect superior to that of the ordinary man, conduct which is consistent with his individual ability. Professional individuals in general and those who undertake any work or calling for which a special skill is required have a duty not only to exercise reasonable care in what they do, but also to possess a standard minimum of special knowledge and ability.
A physician is an example of one who must exercise this special standard of care since he is required to possess that reasonable degree of learning, skill and experience which ordinarily is possessed by others of his profession, and he must exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the execution of his skill and the application of his knowledge and exert his best judgment as to the treatment of a case entrusted to him. The means and methods employed must be recognized as necessary and which are customarily followed in the particular type of case according to the standards of those who are qualified by similar training and experience to perform similar services in the community or in a similar community. Hill v. Boughton, 146 Fla. 505, 1 So.2d 610 (1941); Saunders v. Lichkoff, 137 Fla. 826, 188 So. 815 (1939); Potock v. Turek...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Downs v. U.S.
...v. City of Miami, 263 So.2d 573, 578 (Fla.1972); Holland v. Mayes, 155 Fla. 129, 19 So.2d 709, 711 (1944); Miriam Mascheck, Inc. v. Mausner, 264 So.2d 859, 861 (Fla.App.1972). Appellants contend that the District Court erred in applying this standard. They argue that we are free to draw our......
-
Gorin v. City of St. Augustine
...degree of care, diligence and skill that is one's legal duty to use in order to protect another from injury. Miriam Mascheck, Inc. v. Mausner, 264 So.2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). As an essential element of any negligence action, the plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty recognized ......
-
Hensley v. US
...Russ v. State, 191 So. 296, 298 (Fla.1939); Bradley v. Guy, 438 So.2d 854, 855 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Miriam Mascheck, Inc. v. Mausner, 264 So.2d 859, 861 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). 7. To establish proximate cause under Florida law, plaintiffs must show that the defendant's alleged wrong caused the d......
-
Dickerson, Inc. v. Holloway
...considering the reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to persons similarly situated as the plaintiff. Miriam Mascheck, Inc. v. Mausner, 264 So.2d 859 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1972). Additionally, and more to the point in this case, Florida imposes a non-delegable duty on an employer to ensure that a......