Vaughn v. Shelton

Decision Date28 June 1974
Citation514 S.W.2d 870
PartiesMrs. Barbara Dean VAUGHN and Joe Marshall Vaughn, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Dr. Ben A. SHELTON, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtTennessee Court of Appeals

Stanley M. Chernau, Denney, Lackey & Chernau, Nashville, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Watkins, McGugin, Finch & McNeilly, Nashville, for defendant-appellee.

OPINION

SHRIVER, Judge.

I. The Case

In the briefs of counsel these two consolidated cases were designated as malpractice suits in which plaintiff, Barbara Dean Vaughn, seeks to recover damages for the alleged negligence of the defendant, Dr. Ben A. Shelton, in the performing of an operation on the plaintiff, Mrs. Vaughn, for the purpose of sterilization or preventing her from future pregnancies.

The suit of plaintiff, Joe Marshall Vaughn, husband of Mrs. Vaughn, is for expenses and loss of services of his wife because of the alleged negligence of the defendant, Dr. Shelton, in the performance of said operation.

It might be observed in passing that, with propriety, the suit might have been brought and designated as one for breach of contract.

The case was tried before Judge Wiley Holloway and a jury in the Circuit Court of Rutherford County, Tennessee, on August 30, 1973 and at the conclusion of the proof offered by plaintiffs, a motion for a directed verdict in favor of the defendant was sustained and the cases dismissed.

From this action of the Trial Court the plaintiffs have perfected their appeal to this Court and have assigned as error the action of the Trial Judge in directing a verdict for the defendant.

II. The Pleadings and Proof

The bill of complaint of Barbara Dean Vaughn, among other things, alleges that on or about August 26, 1970, she employed defendant as a physician and surgeon to perform sterilization surgery on her during the time she was confined in the Rutherford County Hospital in Murfreesboro for the delivery of her fourth child. She alleges that she employed the defendant by reason of the fact that she was advised by her attending physician that due to her extremely nervous condition and also due to a congenital hip problem that appeared in her first three children, sterilization should be performed.

It is alleged that on or about August 24, 1970, while plaintiff was in the delivery room after the birth of her fourth child, defendant undertook to perform sterilization surgery on her and she was given to understand that said surgery was done properly and successfully.

It is alleged that about four months after the sterilization surgery was performed by the defendant, she again became pregnant and that her fifth child was due to be delivered in August, 1971, but this suit was filed before the birth of said child in order to meet the requirements of the Statute of Limitations.

The defendant's answer admits that on August 24, 1970, immediately after plaintiff had given birth to a child, he was called into the delivery room for the purpose of performing a tubal ligation on her, which he did. He denies that he held out to the plaintiff that the operation would be successful as neither this type of operation or any other surgery is always successful, and from time to time nature undoes the work done by the surgeon. He states that he is informed that plaintiff later became pregnant and has delivered another child but denies that there was any negligence on his part in performing the operation in question.

There is a stipulation in the record, signed by counsel for plaintiffs and defendant, putting into the record two charts from the Rutherford County Hospital on Mrs. Barbara Dean Vaughn. One chart was made on the occasion of her admission to the Hospital in July, 1970, and the other on August 15, 1971 when she was admitted for the birth of her fifth child, a baby daughter named Maquel.

Mrs. Vaughn testified concerning the physical defects of her children, particularly the third child who required hospitalization for a month while surgery was performed in order to correct the birth defect. She also testified concerning her reasons for seeking the operation which was performed by Dr. Shelton and the fact that within four months after the operation which she was led to believe would render her incapable of further pregnancies, she again became pregnant and, subsequently, gave birth to her fifth child, which child, it appears, was normal.

Mr. Vaughn testified about the operation and the expenses incident to and following same. He also testified about the highly nervous condition of his wife, particularly after she learned of her last pregnancy.

From his testimony it appeared that, after the birth of the fifth child, he and his wife employed Dr. Charles Smith who again performed the sterilization operation of tubal ligation on Mrs. Vaughn, which operation appears to have been successful.

For some reason which does not appear in the record, Dr. Smith was not called as a witness in this case.

Dr. E. C. Tolbert gave his deposition which was read to the Court and jury and which was to the effect that Mrs. Vaughn came to his office in January, 1971, primarily to ask him to determine whether or not she had again become pregnant in spite of the operation previously performed upon her in August, 1970 by the defendant, Dr. Shelton.

When asked to explain the fact of pregnancy in spite of the operation previously performed on her, he answered:

'Well, there is a possibility that the tube can be recanalized after being severed at surgery. There is a possibility--we all make mistakes. There is a possibility that the tube could have been overlooked.'

He was then asked if he examined the records at the hospital and replied that ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Phillips v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • January 19, 1981
    ...v. Davis, 48 Ohio St.2d 41, 356 N.E.2d 496 (1976); Shaheen v. Knight, 6 Lycoming Rep. 19, 11 Pa.D. & C.2d 41 (1957); Vaughn v. Shelton, 514 S.W.2d 870 (Tenn.App. 1974); Terrell v. Garcia, 496 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. Civ.App.1973); cert. denied, 415 U.S. 927, 94 S.Ct. 1434, 39 L.Ed.2d 484 (1974); B......
  • Jackson v. Bumgardner
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 29, 1986
    ...48 Ohio St.2d 41, 356 N.E.2d 496 (1976); Pennsylvania--Speck v. Finegold, 497 Pa. 77, 439 A.2d 110 (1981); Tennessee--Vaughn v. Shelton, 514 S.W.2d 870 (Tenn.Ct.App.1974); Virginia--Miller v. Johnson, 231 Va. 177, 343 S.E.2d 301 (1986); Washington--McKernan v. Aasheim, 102 Wash.2d 411, 687 ......
  • Sorkin v. Lee
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 23, 1980
    ...Martineau v. Nelson, 311 Minn. 92, 247 N.W.2d 409 (failed tubal ligation; court applied traditional negligence principles); Vaughn v. Shelton, 514 S.W.2d 870 (Tenn.); Hackworth v. Hart, 474 S.W.2d 377 (Ky.); Jackson v. Anderson, 230 So.2d 503 (Fla.).Cases disapproving cause of action where ......
  • Wilczynski v. Goodman
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 5, 1979
    ...Sternberg (1974), 45 A.D.2d 230, 357 N.Y.S.2d 265, 268; Cf., Clegg v. Chase (1977), 89 Misc.2d 510, 391 N.Y.S.2d 966; Vaughn v. Shelton (Tenn.App.1974), 514 S.W.2d 870; Hackworth v. Hart (Ky.1971), 474 S.W.2d 377; Jackson v. Anderson (Fla.App.D.2 1970), 230 So.2d The contrary view is mainta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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