Smith v. Stump

Citation40 N.E. 279,12 Ind.App. 359
PartiesSMITH v. STUMP.
Decision Date11 April 1895
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from circuit court, Huntington county; O. W. Whitelock, Judge.

Action by Homer Stump by next friend against Andrew J. Smith. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Kidd & Hunter, Warren G. Sayre, and Sayler & Sayler, for appellant. H. C. Pettit, for appellee.

GAVIN, J.

The appellee recovered judgment for damages for malpractice in setting and treating a broken arm, whereby the power of pronation and supination was impaired. Appellant here asserts that his motion for new trial should have been sustained. It is earnestly argued that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict for appellee. Appellant certainly did not undertake absolutely to cure appellee, but he was bound, as his attending physician and surgeon, to possess and exercise the average degree of skill and care possessed and exercised by members of his profession practicing in such localities. Becknell v. Hosier (Ind. App.) 37 N. E. 580;Kelsey v. Hay, 84 Ind. 189;Gramm v. Boener, 56 Ind. 497. It is true that physicians testified, in answer to the hypothetical case put by appellant's counsel, that appellant was in the exercise of proper skill and care in his treatment of the child; but there is the widest possible want of harmony between the evidence of appellant and of appellee as to the existence or nonexistence of the facts upon which that question was based. This conflict in the evidence it was, so far as this court is concerned, for the jury to determine. Calton v. Lewis (Ind. App.) 35 N. E. 301. While the evidence would seem to us to preponderate quite largely in favor of the appellant, there is no such absolute want of evidence fairly sustaining any material and essential fact as would permit us, under well-established rules, to overthrow the verdict. Kelley v. Kelley, 8 Ind. App. 606, 34 N. E. 1009;Haines v. Porch (Ind. App.) 36 N. E. 926. There has always been recognized a broad distinction between the points of view from which the trial court and the appellate tribunal regard the determination of the jury on controverted questions of fact. By its determination of such questions the appellate court is bound, but not so with the trial court, which has equal opportunities to see the witnesses face to face, judge as to their looks, action, manner of testifying, and all the numerous indicia of truth or falsehood which appear to those participating in the active trial of a cause. Notwithstanding the fact that the difference between the functions of the trial and appellate courts has been frequently declared, it would sometimes seem to be overlooked, and, in the language of the supreme court, we fear that the circuit court oftentimes follows the rule which governs the supreme and appellate courts, instead of that which should control the action of the circuit court. In the circuit court it should clearly appear...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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