Shockley v. Tucker

• Decision Date: 05 May 1905
• Citation: 103 N.W. 360,127 Iowa 456
• Parties: SHOCKLEY v. TUCKER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

127 Iowa 456

103 N.W. 360

SHOCKLEY

v.TUCKER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 5, 1905.

Appeal from District Court, Marshall County; G. W. Burnham, Judge.

Action to recover damages for injuries suffered by plaintiff by having his body burned by the use of an X-ray machine, while being treated by defendant as a physician, for appendicitis. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.J. L. Carney, for appellant.

McCLAIN, J.

The allegations of the petition are broad enough to cover negligence in the use of the X rays as a treatment for appendicitis, and also negligence in the method in which the X rays were used; and evidence was introduced for plaintiff as to both forms of negligence. The complaint of appellant with reference to the testimony of physicians that the X-ray treatment was not a proper one for appendicitis was objected to on the ground that the witnesses did not belong to the same school of medicine as the defendant, and counsel argues that a physician should be judged in an action for malpractice only in accordance with the theories of his own school of medicine, as shown by those familiar with it. But the case was submitted to the jury solely on the question whether defendant had been negligent in his method of using the X rays. As we think, this was a question of science and skill, wholly independent of the methods of treatment of any particular school. That the plaintiff was severely burned in his abdomen by the use of the X rays, and suffered great pain and extended, if not permanent, disability therefrom, is clearly shown; and we hardly think it would be contended that such burning was proper treatment for any disease, or in accordance with the theories of any school. As the case was allowed to go to trial on both theories of negligence presented by the petition, it was competent for plaintiff to introduce evidence showing that the X-ray treatment for appendicitis was not approved by physicians; and the objection that the physicians thus testifying were not of the same school as the defendant, even if improperly overruled, cannot now be made the basis of an assignment of error. The witnesses were shown to be competent to testify as to the nature of the burns which are caused by an improper use of the X rays; and, whatever error may have been committed in allowing them to testify as to whether the X-ray treatment was proper for appendicitis, it was without prejudice.

A witness for plaintiff was asked...