Phillips v. Werndorff

• Decision Date: 24 June 1932
• Docket Number: No. 41283.,41283.
• Parties: PHILLIPS v. WERNDORFF.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

215 Iowa 521

243 N.W. 525

PHILLIPS

v.WERNDORFF.

No. 41283.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 24, 1932.

Appeal from District Court, Pottawattamie County; K. R. Cook, Judge.

Action at law to recover damages against a physician for malpractice. A demurrer to the defendant's answer was overruled, and the plaintiff elected to stand thereon, and suffered judgment to be entered against him. From the judgment so entered, he appeals.

Affirmed.Wm. P. Welch, of Logan, and Robertson & Robertson, of Council Bluffs, for appellant.

Tinley, Mitchell, Ross & Mitchell, of Council Bluffs, for appellee.

STEVENS, J.

This action is brought by the guardian of Viola Phillips, a minor, to recover damages for the alleged malpractice of the defendant appellee who was employed as a physician to treat certain injuries received by her in an automobile accident. No question is raised in this court as to the sufficiency of the allegations of the petition to state a cause of action nor of the right of the plaintiff in the first instance to recover damages of the defendant resulting from the unskillful and negligent treatment of the injuries of his ward received in the automobile accident. The answer to the plaintiff's petition in the case before us set up an alleged settlement and satisfaction of all the damages sought herein in an action by plaintiff's ward against W. H. Adams whose automobile struck Viola Phillips, inflicting the injuries for which she was treated by appellant. Accompanying the answer as an exhibit is a copy of the written stipulation and agreement between appellant as guardian of Viola Phillips and the Adamses in the action for damages then pending against them.

[1] Appellant filed a motion to strike the answer filed to the petition in this case which, by agreement of the parties, was treated as a demurrer. The court overruled the demurrer, and the appellant in open court elected to stand thereon, refused to plead further, and suffered judgment dismissing the petition and for costs to be entered against him. Further proceedings referred to and discussed in appellant's argument need not, for obvious reasons, be considered. If the ruling of the court on the demurrer to the answer is sustained, this necessarily disposes of the case. The judgment thereupon entered becomes final and conclusive.

Two questions of law are involved and before us for decision. It is claimed in behalf of appellee, first, that the damages, if any, resulting to Viola Phillips from the unskillfulness or negligence of appellee in the treatment of the original injuries are the natural result of the wrongful act of the driver of the automobile for which the Adamses were liable, and, second, that, having accepted compensation from the original wrongdoers for and in satisfaction of all of the damages, no action against the physician for any part thereof will lie. There is little, if any, conflict in the authorities upon either of the propositions relied upon by appellee.

[2] The question to be first answered is: Were the Adamses, the original wrongdoers, liable in the action pending against them at the time the alleged settlement and release was signed for damages resulting from the negligent or unskillful treatment by appellee of the injuries originally inflicted upon Viola Phillips. The rule is almost universal that the aggravation of an injury resulting from the unskillful treatment of a physician or surgeon, if reasonable care was observed in his employment, is one of the elements of the damages for which the original wrongdoer is liable. Collins v. City of Council Bluffs, 32 Iowa, 324, 7 Am. Rep. 200; Rice v. Des Moines, 40 Iowa, 638;Doran v. Waterloo, C. F. & N. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 147 N. W. 1100;Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Hill, 237 U. S. 208, 35 S. Ct. 575, 59 L. Ed. 918;Goss v. Goss, 102 Minn. 346, 113 N. W. 690;Elliott v. Kansas City, 174 Mo. 554, 74 S. W. 617.

This general rule is recognized by the following cases cited and relied upon by appellant to sustain his contention: Parkell v. Fitzporter, 301 Mo. 217, 256 S. W. 239, 29 A. L. R. 1305;Viita v. Fleming et al., 132 Minn. 128, 155 N. W. 1077, L. R. A. 1916D, 644, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 678;Staehlin v. Hochdoerfer (Mo. Sup.) 235 S. W. 1060.

[3] It appears, however, that, if damages alleged to have resulted from the unskillfulness or negligence of a physician or surgeon have no causal connection with the original injury, the first wrongdoer is not liable therefor. This is illustrated in Purchase v. Seelye, 231 Mass. 434, 121 N. E. 413, 8 A. L. R. 503. It appeared in that case that a surgeon performed an operation upon the plaintiff in the supposed treatment of injuries previously suffered on the wrong side and for something having no connection whatever with the original injury. The court held that, as there was no causal connection between the operation alleged to have been unskillfully and negligently performed, a new, separate, and independent cause of action arose, and that the original wrongdoer could not be held liable therefor. The point here suggested is urged by counsel for appellant on this appeal. Looking to the allegations of the petition, we find that each and all of the charges of malpractice are based strictly upon the negligent and unskillful treatment of the injuries received by Viola Phillips when struck by the automobile. No separate or independent tort is urged. The question before us is not whether actions may have originally been separately maintained against the Adamses for the injuries inflicted by them and also for such, if any, as resulted from the unskillfulness or negligence of appellee and also against appellee for the alleged malpractice. That question is...