Roberts v. Young, s. 86

Decision Date06 February 1963
Docket NumberNos. 86,87,s. 86
Parties, 99 A.L.R.2d 1330 Raymond ROBERTS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Dr. Roy YOUNG and Dr. Ira Dean McCoy, Defendants and Appellees. Donna ROBERTS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Dr. Roy YOUNG and Dr. Ira Dean McCoy, Defendants and Appellees.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

Davies & Moesta, by Joseph R. Brom, Detroit, for plaintiff and appellant.

Feikens, Dice, Sweeney & Sullivan, by Robert E. Dice, Detroit, for defendant and appellee, Dr. Roy Young.

Before the Entire Bench.

CARR, Chief Justice.

These cases were instituted in the circuit court of Huron county for the recovery of damages on the theory of malpractice on the part of defendants in their professional capacities, and were consolidated for trial. Defendant Young at the time of the occurrence of the events giving rise to the alleged causes of action was a practicing osteopathic physician in said county, and the other defendant was a practicing physician and surgeon therein. It was the claim of the plaintiffs as set forth in their pleadings that defendant Young was employed to care for and treat Mrs. Roberts during her 8th pregnancy and the birth of her child, that at the procurement of said defendant Dr. McCoy performed a Caesarean operation alleged to have been unnecessary and improper, that abdominal infection followed, that Mrs. Roberts was subjected to severe illness and suffering, that expenditures by her husband for hospital and medical treatment were required, and that such results followed from the conduct of defendants. It was specifically alleged also that defendant Young failed to properly advise Mrs. Roberts of conditions that might follow the operation.

Defendants by their respective answers to the declarations denied any breach of duty or improper professional conduct on their part, and denied that the condition of which Mrs. Roberts complained was the result of malpractice by them or either of them. It was the claim of each that they had exercised that measure and degree of care customarily observed by practitioners of their respective schools of treatment for the care and alleviation of human ailments commonly observed in the community by such practitioners. The cases were tried before a jury. Defendant Young was called for cross-examination by counsel for the plaintiffs and testified at some length. In substance it was his claim that he had in all respects observed the generally accepted standards of practice of members of his profession in good standing in the community, and that the unfortunate effects that followed the operation undergone by Mrs. Roberts did not result from any neglect of duty in connection with the treatment of the patient. The other defendant was not called as a witness.

Mrs. Roberts testified as to her conferences with defendant Young, indicating that during a prior pregnancy she had discussed with him the matter of a Caesarean operation and sterilization, no operation being performed at that time. She testified also that she had been troubled with varicose veins. The following excerpt from her testimony indicates that she was reasonably informed as to the nature of the proposed operation:

'Q. Further you knew what was meant by a Caesarean, didn't you?

'A. Yes.

'Q. You knew it would involve a cutting of your abdomen?

'A. Yes.

'Q. Down the center?

'Q. And the removal of your child in that manner?

'A. Yes.

'Q. And you also knew what the term 'tubal ligation' meant?

'A. Yes.

'Q. You knew that it meant that the Fallopian tubes would be tied and then you would have no danger of becoming pregnant?

'A. Yes.

'Q. And you knew they were going to do both in the same procedure?

'A. Yes.

'Q. And all of this was known to you and agreed by you and your husband before it was performed?

'A. Yes.

'Q. Now, Mrs. Roberts, further, you are not claiming in this case that either Dr. McCoy or Dr. Young caused any infection, are you?

'A. No.'

Testimony was also offered on behalf of plaintiffs to the effect that subsequent to the operation and while in a hospital Mrs. Roberts developed pneumonia and was transferred for treatment to the Detroit Osteopathic Hospital. Depositions of physicians who treated her there were received in evidence. One of said witnesses was asked certain questions with reference to the possibility of infection having resulted from the performance of the Caesarean section. Such testimony was objected to and was excluded by the trial judge. The witness was not present at the operation and was furnished with no statement of facts as to what had occurred thereat. Subject to the objection, he was permitted to answer the question by stating that such result was possible. He did not undertake to express the opinion that such was the case, nor is there any showing in the record that the infection from which Mrs. Roberts suffered was the result of any act or omission of either of the defendants. It is a fair conclusion from the proofs that in any major surgical procedure there is always a risk of infection. Such sequence is not actionable unless caused by the failure of the attending physician or surgeon to observe proper care in connection with the treatment of the patient. The exclusion of the testimony to which objection was made was not error. Had it been received the outcome of the case would not have been affected. At the conclusion of plaintiffs' proofs defendants submitted motions for directed verdicts which the trial judge granted, pointing out in his opinion that there was no expert medical testimony contravening the claim of defendant Young that the proper standards of practice had been duly observed. From the judgments entered on the directed verdicts plaintiffs have appealed.

If in an action for damages for malpractice it appears that the conduct charged against the medical practitioner was of such character as to not require expert testimony submission of the question at issue to the jury is proper without evidence from other practitioners. Thus if a foreign object is left within the body of a patient on whom an operation has been performed, to his injury, laymen may properly decide the question of negligence without the aid of experts. Wood v. Vroman, 226 Mich. 625, 198 N.W. 228; LeFaive v. Asselin, 262 Mich....

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Halley v. Birbiglia
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 7 Diciembre 1983
    ...539, 173 A.2d 333 (1961); Govin v. Hunter, 374 P.2d 421 (Wyo.1962); Bowers v. Talmage, 159 So.2d 888 (Fla.App.1963); Roberts v. Young, 369 Mich. 133, 119 N.W.2d 627 (1963); Aiken v. Clary, 396 S.W.2d 668 (Mo.1965); Grosjean v. Spencer, 258 Iowa 685, 140 N.W.2d 139 (1966); Wilson v. Scott, 4......
  • Sard v. Hardy
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 9 Noviembre 1977
    ...by what risks a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed under the same or similar circumstances. Roberts v. Young, 369 Mich. 133, 119 N.W.2d 627, 630 (1963); Aiken v. Clary, 396 S.W.2d 668, 675 (Mo.1965). Thus, the measure of liability is no different from that applied in the u......
  • Mason v. Ellsworth
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 23 Septiembre 1970
    ...Bowers v. Talmago, 159 So.2d 888 (Fla.1963); Grosjean v. Spencer, 258 Iowa 685, 140 N.W.2d 139 (1966); Roberts v. Young, 369 Mich. 133, 119 N.W.2d 627 (1963); Aiken v. Clary, 396 S.W.2d 668 (Mo.1965); Negaard v. Estate of Feda, 152 Mont. 47, 446 P.2d 436 (1968); Starnes v. Taylor, 272 N.C. ......
  • Logan v. Greenwich Hosp. Ass'n
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 6 Septiembre 1983
    ...53 Del. 539, 549-50, 173 A.2d 333 (1961); Haggerty v. McCarthy, 344 Mass. 136, 141, 181 N.E.2d 562 (1962); Roberts v. Young, 369 Mich. 133, 140, 119 N.W.2d 627 (1963); Aiken v. Clary, 396 S.W.2d 668, 675-76 (Mo.1965). As in other aspects of medical science, only members of the profession ar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT