United Dentists v. Bryan

• Decision Date: 16 June 1932
• Citation: 158 Va. 880
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: UNITED DENTISTS, INC. v. MRS. GATEWOOD T. BRYAN.

Page 880

158 Va. 880

UNITED DENTISTS, INC. v.MRS. GATEWOOD T. BRYAN.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Wytheville.

June 16, 1932.

Present, Campbell, C.J., and Holt, Hudgins, Gregory and Browning, JJ.

1.DENTISTS — Action for Negligence against Dentist — Res Ipsa Loquitur — Case at Bar.— The instant case was an action for damages against a dental corporation, which plaintiff claimed were occasioned by the negligence and carelessness of one of defendant's agents in and about the extraction of a wisdom tooth.

Held: That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply in the instant case.

2.DENTISTS — Possession of Proper Skill — Degree of Care and Skill Required — Dentist Does Not Guarantee a Cure.— A dentist who holds himself out to the world as such, impliedly represents that he possesses the necessary and proper skill to practice his profession.The degree of care and skill required, is the same as that which would be exercised by the ordinarily prudent dentist, in good standing, in his community.He does not guarantee or warrant a cure.He is not required to exercise the highest degree of care and skill known to the profession.

3.DENTISTS — Action for Negligence against Dentist — Evidence as to the Practice of Prudent Dentists in the Extraction of Wisdom Teeth — Case at Bar.— The instant case was an action for damages against a dental corporation, which plaintiff claimed were occasioned by the negligence and carelessness of one of defendant's agents in and about the extraction of a wisdom tooth.There was a verdict for plaintiff.There was credible testimony in the case which tended to show that the practice of the ordinarily prudent dentists in that community required, in the extraction of a wisdom tooth, that the gum should first be swabbed with a disinfectant before the novocaine was injected; that the needle must be entirely immersed in a seventy per cent solution of alcohol for at least twenty minutes in order to properly sterilize it; that the inside of the needle must be cleansed and all alcohol removed and that a half-pint milk bottle was not a proper container for the sterilizing fluid.

4.DENTISTS — Action for Negligence against Dentist — Evidence Sufficient to Support a Verdict against Dentist for Negligence in the Extraction of Wisdom Tooth — Questions of Law and Fact — Case at Bar.— The instant case was an action for damages against a dental corporation, which plaintiff claimed were occasioned by the negligence and carelessness of one of defendant's agents in and about the extraction of a wisdom tooth.The evidence was uncontradicted that the defendant's agent failed to swab the gum with a disinfectant before he inserted the needle into it.There was also uncontradicted evidence, which showed that the needle was not entirely immersed in the seventy per cent alcohol solution for at least twenty minutes before insertion.The evidence also showed that the inside of the needle was not properly cleansed with distilled water before it was used, and it was admitted that the solution was kept in a half-pint milk bottle.

Held: That it was for the jury to determine whether the failure to swab the gum with a disinfectant before inserting the hypodermic needle to inject the novocaine was negligence; also whether the defendant provided the proper container for the sterilizing fluid and whether the needle was properly sterilized.

5.DENTISTS — Action for Negligence against Dentist — Questions of Law and Fact — Case at Bar.— The instant case was an action for damages against a dental corporation, which plaintiff claimed were occasioned by the negligence and carelessness of one of defendant's agents in and about the extraction of a wisdom tooth.It was contended by counsel for the defendant that the infection was not a result of the use of any unclean instruments; but that the infection and injury may just as likely have been caused by some other agency as by the failure to use clean instruments.In cases of this nature a plaintiff, in his proof, is not required to exclude every possibility that the injury might have been caused through some means for which the defendant is not responsible.All that is required of the plaintiff, is that he prove his case by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Held: That whether the infection of plaintiff's jaw resulted from the use of unclean instruments was peculiarly a question for the jury.

6.APPEAL AND ERROR — Admission of Improper Evidence — Prejudice to Adverse Party — Case at Bar.— In the instant case it was contended by defendant that the trial court, over his objection, admitted improper evidence.

Held: That assuming that the evidence, under strict and technical rules, was improperly admitted, the Supreme Court of Appeals would not be justified in reversing the judgment, because it was not shown that the evidence was prejudicial to defendant.

7.DENTISTS — Action for Negligence against Dentist — Admission of Doctor's Bill as Evidence — Case at Bar.— In the instant case, an action against a dental corporation for negligence, plaintiff offered in evidence a doctor's account amounting to $170.00.Defendant objected on the ground that the account was a liability of plaintiff's husband.The court overruled the objection and admitted the account in evidence.

Held: That no error was committed in admitting the account.

8.HUSBAND AND WIFE — Married Women — Recovery for Personal Injuries — Medical Bills.— A married woman may now recover for a personal injury inflicted on her "the entire damage sustained."Code of 1919, section 5134.This would, of course, embrace medical bills incurred by her, necessary to effect a cure and for which she is liable.

Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of the city of Norfolk, in a proceeding by motion for a judgment for damages.Judgment for plaintiff.Defendant assigns error.

The opinion states the case.

Daniel Coleman and N. T. Green, for the plaintiff in error.

Ferebee & White, for the defendant in error.

GREGORY, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

Mrs. Gatewood T. Bryan instituted an action against United Dentists, Incorporated, for damages which she claimed were occasioned by the negligence and carelessness of one of the defendant's agents in and about the extraction of a wisdom tooth.The case was tried before a jury and resulted in a verdict in her favor of $650.00, which the court refused to set aside.

United Dentists, Incorporated, the defendant in the trial court, and as such so referred to here, is a corporation organized under the laws of Virginia and authorized to engage in the practice of dentistry in all of its branches.It maintains an office for that purpose in the city of Norfolk and had in its employ, as a dentist, one Dr. Oliver G. Barnett, a graduate dentist of several years experience.

Mrs. Bryan, the plaintiff in the court below and who will be so referred to here, called at the office of the defendant corporation on September 3, 1930, for the purpose of having certain dental work performed.She was referred to Dr. Barnett and he examined the tooth which had been causing her trouble.He advised that the tooth be extracted and she consented to have this done by Dr. Barnett.Whereupon, according to the testimony of Mrs. Bryan, Dr. Barnett examined the tooth with a mirror and then injected into the gum a solution of novocaine.After this had been done he proceeded to extract the tooth which he accomplished with little difficulty.The cavity left after the tooth had been extracted was normal and no complications were apparent.

On September 4th, Mrs. Bryan's jaw began to swell and on September 5th, she returned to the office of the United Dentists, Incorporated, and was informed by Dr. Spencer, another dentist in the employ of the defendant, after an examination, that she had an abscess.He gave her a treatment which consisted of washing and swabbing the gum and cavity with iodine.On September 6th, she called upon Dr. Manning, who was not connected with the defendant but who was...