Williams v. LeBar
| Decision Date | 23 March 1891 |
| Citation | 141 Pa. 149 |
| Parties | JOSEPHUS WILLIAMS v. AMZI LeBAR ET AL. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before PAXSON, C. J., STERRETT, WILLIAMS, McCOLLUM and MITCHELL, JJ.
APPEAL BY PLAINTIFF FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONROE COUNTY.
No. 278 January Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 16 December Term 1882, C. P.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Mr. Charles B. Staples (with him Mr. Wilton A. Erdman), for the appellant.
Counsel cited, inter alia: Commonwealth v. Haskell, 2 Brewst. 504; 1 Addison on Torts, 22; Hall v. Semple, 3 F. & F. 337; Shear & Redf. on Neg., §§ 57, 58.
Mr. S. Holmes, for the appellees, was not heard.
As to the burden of proving negligence, the brief filed cited: Briggs v. Garrett, 111 Pa. 415. That the release of one of two joint tort-feasors releases the other: Seither v. Traction Co., 125 Pa. 397; Ayers v. Ashmead, 31 Conn. 447; O'Neal v. O'Neal, 4 W. & S. 130; Finch v. Lamberton, 62 Pa. 372; Beltzhoover v. Commonwealth, 1 W. 126; Williams v. McFall, 2 S. & R. 279; Downey v. Farmers etc. Bank, 13 S. & R. 288.
The defendants are physicians, and were sued in the court below for signing a certificate of plaintiff's insanity, without having made a careful examination. The case was tried by the learned judge without a jury, with the result of a judgment in favor of the defendants.
The record is voluminous, with twenty-five assignments of error. They relate to the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The learned judge found that the certificate was false; that is to say, the defendants were mistaken, and the plaintiff was not insane at the time it was given. But upon the other question, the negligence, he found against the plaintiff. He very properly held that no presumption of negligence arose from the mere fact that the defendants were mistaken as to the fact of insanity. He further found that they had made an examination of the plaintiff, and that the onus of showing negligence was upon him. The most the case discloses is an error of judgment, to which the most careful and skilful physician is liable in a mysterious disease like insanity. We do not think it necessary to discuss the numerous assignments of error. None of them is sustained.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Passarello v. Rowena T. Grumbine, M.D. & Blair Med. Assocs., Inc.
...a cure and that mistakes by doctors are not necessarily the result of negligence.” Id. at 165–66, citing and quoting Williams v. LeBar, 141 Pa. 149, 21 A. 525 (1891); English v. Free, 205 Pa. 624, 55 A. 777 (1903); and Ward v. Garvin, 328 Pa. 395, 195 A. 885 (1938). However, the Superior Co......
-
Pringle v. Rapaport
...that a doctor does not promise a cure and that mistakes by doctors are not necessarily the result of negligence. In Williams v. LeBar, 141 Pa. 149, 21 A. 525 (1891), for example, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for signing a certificate stating that the plaintiff was i......
-
Dunbar v. Greenlaw
...v. McDonald, 194 Mich. 500, 160 N.W. 836. There is contrary authority. Ayers v. Russell, 50 Hun 282, 3 N.Y.S. 338; Williams v. Le Bar, 141 Pa. 149, 151, 21 A. 525 and Miller v. West, 165 Md. 245, 167 A. 696 (dictum), were decided upon the issue of ordinary or reasonable care of the physicia......
-
Hunder v. Rindlaub
...153 N.W. 692; Nelson v. Sandell (Iowa) 46 A.L.R. 1447. There is no presumption of negligence because a physician made a mistake. Williams v. Le Bar, 21 A. 525. diagnosis or judgment and treatment following same mistake is not negligence. McDaniels v. Moth (Iowa) 230 N.W. 311. Where there ar......