Person v. Lilliendahl

• Decision Date: 03 April 1934
• Citation: Person v. Lilliendahl, 118 Conn. 693, 172 A. 94 (Conn. 1934)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: PERSON v. LILLIENDAHL.

172 A. 94

118 Conn. 693

PERSON v. LILLIENDAHL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 3, 1934

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Ernest A. Inglis Judge.

Action by Esther Person against John R. Lilliendahl to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in the extraction of a tooth brought to the superior court and tried to the jury.The court directed a verdict for the defendant, and, from the judgment rendered thereon, the plaintiff appealed.

No error.

Testimony which did not include expert opinion testimony, that dentist was negligent in failing to inform patient that her jaw was broken after extracting tooth and in attempting to remove fragment of tooth from fractured jaw and in failing to give patient proper after treatment, held insufficient for jury.

Dominic A. Roina, of Greenwich, and Robert R. Rosan, of Port Chester, N. Y., for appellant.

Cyril Coleman, Lawrence A. Howard, and Olcott D. Smith, all of Hartford, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages because of injuries due to alleged malpractice on the part of the defendant, a dentist, and she has appealed from a judgment upon a verdict directed for the defendant.In her complaint she alleged that, in extracting an impacted tooth, the defendant fractured her jaw, and that thereafter he failed to tell her this, although he knew or should have known it failed to set the jaw, to remove broken pieces of bone, and to give her proper after treatment.The plaintiff concedes that no evidence was offered sufficient to show that the jaw was broken in extracting the tooth, but that the fracture must be regarded as pathological: that is, resulting from a diseased condition of the bone.The tooth was extracted, as the plaintiff testified, on February 1, 1932.The fracture did not appear until an X-ray picture was taken on February 21st.This picture also disclosed a fragment of tooth remaining in the jaw.The plaintiff testified that the defendant advised her to return to have this extracted, but did not tell her of the fracture.She did return, and the defendant attempted to extract the fragment of tooth remaining in the jaw, but was not successful.He then advised her to return the next day, but the next morning the plaintiff was informed that he had...