Vale v. Noe
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
| Writing for the Court | ROSENBERRY |
| Citation | 172 Wis. 421,179 N.W. 572 |
| Decision Date | 19 October 1920 |
| Parties | VALE v. NOE. |
172 Wis. 421
179 N.W. 572
VALE
v.
NOE.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Oct. 19, 1920.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dane County; E. Ray Stevens, Judge.
Action by Josephine R. Vale against Walter B. Noe. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, with direction to dismiss complaint.
Malpractice. The defendant is a dentist, residing in the city of Madison. He was preparing the last tooth on the lower left jaw of the plaintiff to receive a crown when the disk or stone, which is about 1/32 of an inch in thickness and 5/8 of an inch in diameter, slipped from the tooth, cut a considerable gash in the bottom of the plaintiff's mouth, cut her tongue, and occasioned the damages for which this action is brought. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the injuries sustained by her were the result of a failure on the part of the defendant to exercise due and proper care and skill as a dentist or dental surgeon in operating upon and treating her teeth, and that, while using the stone operated by electricity, the defendant negligently and carelessly caused it to produce the injuries complained of. It was the contention of the defendant that the injuries were due to the fact that the plaintiff moved her tongue or jerked her head and were therefore the result of her own negligence. Upon the trial the jury found: That the appellant failed to exercise ordinary care; second, that the injury to the respondent was the natural and probable result of such failure; third, that the appellant, a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence, ought to have foreseen that an injury might result from such failure; fourth, that the respondent, immediately before the injury, did not move her tongue suddenly or violently and did not jerk her head; and assessed the damages at $475. There was a motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. The trial court was of the opinion that the defendant having testified that, “if he had removed his foot from the control lever immediately upon the stone leaving the tooth, the stone would have stopped before it inflicted the injury here in question. With this testimony of the defendant before it, it became a question of fact to be determined by the jury whether, in view of the circumstances under which the defendant acted, he exercised reasonable care and skill in failing to stop the stone before it inflicted the injury”--therefore denied the motions. Plaintiff had judgment upon the verdict, from which the defendant appeals.
[179 N.W. 572]
Curkeet & Lewis, of Madison, for appellant.
Gilbert, Ela & Heilman, of Madison, for respondent.
ROSENBERRY, J. (after stating the facts as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whetstine v. Moravec, No. 44945.
...dentist injured the plaintiff in using a polishing drill, the court after referring to the fact that the Wisconsin Court, in Vale v. Noe, 172 Wis. 421, 179 N.W. 572, had held that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine did not apply in a similar case, which holding was followed by the trial court, ......
-
Fehrman v. Smirl
...against physicians. This was so held in Kuehnemann v. Boyd (1927), 193 Wis. 588, 592, 214 N.W. 326, 215 N.W. 455. Cf. Vale v. Noe (1920), 172 Wis. 421, 179 N.W. 572. The appellant plaintiff in Ahola v. Sincock (1959), 6 Wis.2d 332, 94 N.W.2d 566, sought to have this court reverse its prior ......
-
Whetstine v. Moravec, 44945.
...dentist injured the plaintiff in using a polishing drill, the court after referring to the fact that the Wisconsin Court, in Vale v. Noe, 172 Wis. 421, 179 N.W. 572, had held that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine did not apply in a similar case, which holding was followed by the trial court, ......
-
Whitmore v. Herrick, No. 38636.
...v. Friedmann, 197 App. Div. 230, 188 N. Y. S. 777;Runyan v. Goodrum, 147 Ark. 481, 228 S. W. 397, 13 A. L. R. 1403;Vale v. Noe, 172 Wis. 421, 179 N. W. 572;Streett v. Hodgson, 139 Md. 137, 115 A. 27;Nixon v. Pfahler, 279 Pa. 377, 124 A. 130;Hamilton v. Harris (Tex. Civ. App.) 204 S. W. 450;......
-
Whetstine v. Moravec, No. 44945.
...dentist injured the plaintiff in using a polishing drill, the court after referring to the fact that the Wisconsin Court, in Vale v. Noe, 172 Wis. 421, 179 N.W. 572, had held that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine did not apply in a similar case, which holding was followed by the trial court, ......
-
Fehrman v. Smirl
...against physicians. This was so held in Kuehnemann v. Boyd (1927), 193 Wis. 588, 592, 214 N.W. 326, 215 N.W. 455. Cf. Vale v. Noe (1920), 172 Wis. 421, 179 N.W. 572. The appellant plaintiff in Ahola v. Sincock (1959), 6 Wis.2d 332, 94 N.W.2d 566, sought to have this court reverse its prior ......
-
Whetstine v. Moravec, 44945.
...dentist injured the plaintiff in using a polishing drill, the court after referring to the fact that the Wisconsin Court, in Vale v. Noe, 172 Wis. 421, 179 N.W. 572, had held that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine did not apply in a similar case, which holding was followed by the trial court, ......
-
Whitmore v. Herrick, No. 38636.
...v. Friedmann, 197 App. Div. 230, 188 N. Y. S. 777;Runyan v. Goodrum, 147 Ark. 481, 228 S. W. 397, 13 A. L. R. 1403;Vale v. Noe, 172 Wis. 421, 179 N. W. 572;Streett v. Hodgson, 139 Md. 137, 115 A. 27;Nixon v. Pfahler, 279 Pa. 377, 124 A. 130;Hamilton v. Harris (Tex. Civ. App.) 204 S. W. 450;......