Ramsdell v. Grady
Decision Date | 13 February 1903 |
Citation | 97 Me. 319,54 A. 763 |
Parties | RAMSDELL v. GRADY. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
(Official.)
On motion from Supreme Judicial Court, Washington County.
Action by Abbie D. Ramsdell, administratrix, against James B. Grady. Verdict for plaintiff. Motion for new trial. Overruled.
Action on the case, brought to recover damages on account of the negligence of the defendant a physician, in the treatment of the plaintiff's intestate, Henry P. Ramsdell, during his last sickness, which commenced on Saturday, November 24, 1900, and terminated fatally on Saturday, December 1, A. D. 1900.
The plaintiff's contention was that the disease from which Mr. Ramsdell suffered and died was diphtheria; that it was a typical case, having all the characteristic symptoms; that it was not a disease difficult to diagnose; that it should have been discovered by physicians of ordinarily good standing as to their qualifications, and who, in the care and treatment of the case, exercise that diligence, care, and attention that the seriousness of such a case called for and required; that the defendant, as a physician, treated plaintiff's intestate, Mr. Ramsdell, from Monday, November 26th, until the latter part of the following Friday afternoon, and, although he saw Mr. Ramsdell seven times during the five days that he treated him, did not discover the presence of diphtheria, and consequently did not treat him for diphtheria; that on Friday night, after having treated him for five days, he sent him from Eastport to the Eastern Maine General Hospital in Bangor, a distance of 135 or 140 miles, in the nighttime, in the winter, unattended by a physician or nurse, for the purpose of having a surgical operation performed upon his throat; that on account of his failure to discover the disease from which he was suffering, and to administer the proper treatment for it, and on account of sending him from Eastport to Bangor in such condition, he not only suffered great pain, but that he suffered a great deal more than he otherwise would had the defendant discovered the presence of diphtheria when he should have discovered it, and administered the proper and well-recognized and universally adopted remedy for that disease.
The case was tried to a jury, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff of $3,000.
Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and EMERY, WHITEHOUSE, STROUT, SAVAGE, and SPEAR, JJ.
F. J. Martin. H. M. Cook, G. M. Hanson, and A. St. Clair, for plaintiff.
W. R. Pattangall, L. D. Lamond, and G. A. Curran, for defendant.
SAVAGE, J. Case against physician for negligently and unskillfully diagnosing the disease with which the plaintiff's intestate was ill, and of which he died, and for negligent and unskillful treatment of the same. After a verdict for the plaintiff the case comes here on motion for a new trial. The grounds relied upon are that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, and that the damages awarded are excessive.
1. The plaintiff contends that her intestate was ill with diphtheria; that the defendant was called as attending physician; that he should, by the exercise of reasonable skill and care, have diagnosed the case as diphtheritic, but that he negligently and unskillfully failed to do so, or to administer proper treatment, in consequence of which the patient became increasingly ill, and died five days after the defendant was first called. It appears that the defendant was first called on Monday, and treated the case during the week until Friday afternoon, when the patient, upon his recommendation, was taken from his home in Eastport to a hospital in Bangor, where he died Saturday afternoon. It is claimed that even the removal of the patient was Improper under the circumstances.
The defendant contends that the disease was not diphtheria, or, if it was, that it did not present any apparent symptoms of diphtheria; that, if it was diphtheritic at all, it was laryngeal, and of a kind the distinctive symptoms of which might not be discoverable by the diagnosis of an ordinarily skillful...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hager v. Clark
... ... Miller v. Brown, 82 Iowa 79, 47 N.W. 895; Hansen ... v. Crocker, 160 Ill.App. 514; Howard v. Grover, ... 28 Me. 97, 48 Am. Dec. 478; Ramsdell v. Grady, 97 ... Me. 319, 54 A. 764; Reynolds v. McManus, 139 Iowa ... 242, 117 N.W. 667; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v ... Craighead, Tex. Civ ... ...
-
Coliseum Motor Co. v. Hester
...after his death by his representatives. Kearney v. Railroad Co., 9 Cush. 108; Belding v. R. R. Co., (S. D.) 53 N.W. 750; Ramsdell v. Grady, (Me.) 54 A. 763; R. R. Co. v. Shewalter, (Tenn.) 161 S.W. 1136, L. A. 1916 C, 964. Instruction No. 13 does not state the law, is vague, ambiguous, misl......
-
Downie v. United States Lines Co.
...Bridge Authority, 92 N.H. 268, 30 A.2d 1 (1943); Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Johnson, 191 Ind. 479, 133 N.E. 732 (1922); Ramsdell v. Grady, 97 Me. 319, 54 A. 763 (1903); Richmond Gas Co. v. Baker, 146 Ind. 600, 45 N.E. 1049, 36 L.R.A. 683 (1897). The federal courts have similarly rejected it i......
-
Farrington v. Stoddard
...prior to his death. Such recovery was allowed in Bancroft v. Boston & Worcester R. Corp., 11 Allen, Mass., 34, cited in Ramsdell v. Grady, 97 Me. 319, 322, 54 A. 763, with apparent approval. To the same effect, see Kennedy v. Standard Sugar Refinery, 125 Mass. 90, 28 Am.Rep. 214. See also, ......
-
Survival and Wrongful Death Claims in Maine
...and limitations on damages. 1. Farrington v. Stoddard, 115 F.2d 96, 98 (1st Cir. 1940). 2. 18-A M.R.S.A. § 3-817. 3. Ramsdell v. Grady, 54 A. 763, 764 (Me. 1903). 4. Ames v. Adams, 146 A. 257, 258 (Me. 1929). 5. McKay v. New England Dredging Co., 43 A.29, 30 (Me. 1899). 6. See Anderson v. W......