Union Painless Dentists v. Dement

• Decision Date: 19 December 1912
• Citation: 6 Ala.App. 505,60 So. 421
• Parties: UNION PAINLESS DENTISTS v. DEMENT.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

60 So. 421

6 Ala.App. 505

UNION PAINLESS DENTISTS v. DEMENT.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

December 19, 1912

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; E. C. Crow, Judge.

Action by Emma Dement against the Union Painless Dentists, a partnership, for damages for extracting a tooth. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Charge 9, refused to the defendant, is as follows: "The court charges you gentlemen of the jury, that if you find from the evidence that the plaintiff was instructed to return to the office of defendant for further treatment, and that plaintiff negligently failed to return, then the plaintiff has been guilty of contributory negligence, and if you find that this contributory negligence proximately resulted in her injury then there can be no recovery in favor of the plaintiff."

J. H McNeal, of Birmingham, for appellant.

George E. Bush, of Birmingham, for appellee.

WALKER P.J.

The question to the witness Powell, to which the plaintiff objected, in effect called for a statement by him as to whether or not he exercised due care and skill in his dental treatment of the plaintiff. That was one of the issues in the case, and was a question for the jury. The question was subject to objection as not calling for a statement of the facts by the witness, leaving the deductions or conclusions to be drawn by the jury from the facts as found by them from the evidence, but for the conclusion of the witness as to a fact in issue. The court was not in error in sustaining the objection. Birmingham Ry. L. & P. Co. v. Randle, 149 Ala. 539, 43 So. 355; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v....