Word v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 20 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 22846,22846 |
| Citation | 142 S.E.2d 244,220 Ga. 846 |
| Parties | Essie Beatrice WORD v. Charles T. HENDERSON et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The record discloses the existence of a genuine issue of material facts which must be resolved by a jury, and the trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals having affirmed the lower court, its judgment is reversed.
The writ of certiorari was granted in this case on the application of the plaintiff in error in Word v. Henderson, 110 Ga.App. 780, 140 S.E.2d 92, a five-to-four decision having been rendered against her by the Court of Appeals. The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff excepted, and the Court of Appeals affirmed as to the doctor defendant but reversed as to the hospital defendant. For a full statement of facts reference is here made to the report of the case in the Court of Appeals. The applicant assigns error upon the judgment and decision of that court as to the defendant doctor only.
Hicks & Howard, Marietta, for plaintiff in error.
Reed, Flournoy & Tate, R. M. Reed, Robert E. Flournoy, Edwards, Bentley, Awtrey & Parker, Marietta for defendants in error.
Clearly there was conflict in the evidence as to whether or not the doctor was negligent, making a jury question as to whether or not he should, from the child's condition at 10 a. m., have made other tests to determine whether the patient's condition was one of post-operative shock and should have closely watched the child until the danger aspects had passed. Code § 38-1710. If there is any genuine issue as to any material fact, the right to trial by jury as to those issues can not be denied. Code Ann. § 110-1203 (Ga.L.1959, p. 234). The dissenting opinion, written by Judge Jordan, concurred in by Chief Judge Felton, and Judges Frankum and Russell, is as follows:
'One of the hypotheses stated in Dr. Coker's affidavit was, 'that from the beginning of the checks on said child's pulse rate at 7:35 a. m., on the morning of September 19, 1961, to the final charted check on said child's pulse rate at 10: a. m. on said date, that said child's pulse rate had risen from 78 to 136, an increase of some 58 heart beats per minute and during the same period of time said child's respiratory rate had increased from 18 to 24 breaths per minute, having reached a high of 28 breaths per minute at 9:05 a. m. and following said operation and having changed from a high immediately following the operation to a low of 18, 15 minutes later, reaching the final charted respiratory rate measurement of 24 breaths per minutes at 10 a. m.'
'It is true that other hypotheses in the affidavit included the shot of Demerol at 10:25 a. m., the child turning an ashen color at 11 a. m., and his death at approximately 12 noone. On the basis of these stated occurrences after 10 a. m., together with the child's chart prior to 10 a. m., Dr. Coker was able to definitely state that in his opinion the child was in fact suffering from post-operative shock at 10 a. m. But Dr. Henderson's negligence does not depend on whether the child was in fact suffering from post-operative shock at 10 a. m., but rather, on the basis of the knowledge he had at that time, including the information on the child's chart, he should have made other tests and closely watched and checked the patient's condition.
'This is the error made by the majority in construing Dr. Coker's affidavit. While his conclusion that the child was in fact suffering from shock at 10 a. m. might have been based on consideration of all the hypotheses shown in his affidavit, it is perfectly clear to me that his conclusion that other tests and observations should have been made at 10 a. m. is based solely upon the medical history of the child and the symptoms apparent at that time. In reading and giving consideration to the entire affidavit, as we must do, I think it is certainly susceptible of this constitution. This affidavit was given by Dr. Coker on January 31, 1964. The record shows that a second affidavit was given by Dr. Coker on February 6, 1964, in which he attempted to explain what he did and did not intend to say with reference to the alleged negligence of Dr. Henderson. This lends credence to the position that the first affidavit was ambiguous and not entirely clear as to the conclusions of the affiant relative to the actions of Dr. Henderson.
'Where the evidence on motion for summary judgment is ambiguous or doubtful, the party opposing the motion must be given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and of all favorable inferences and such evidence construed most favorably to the opposing party opposing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allison v. Patel
..."the jury may consider all the attendant facts and circumstances which may throw light on the ultimate question." Word v. Henderson, 220 Ga. 846, 849, 142 S.E.2d 244 (1965). It was not error to permit the jury to hear defendant's justification for his absence or to charge the jury in this 4......
-
Dickson v. Dickson
...opinion evidence can be sufficient to preclude the grant of summary judgment. Harrison, supra, 213, 167 S.E.2d 395; Word v. Henderson, 220 Ga. 846, 142 S.E.2d 244 (1965). If respondent files an affidavit expressing respondent's opinion that the marriage is not irretrievably broken and that ......
-
S.C.T. Su v. Perkins
...examination as to the condition of the patient, and as to whether he has done so is a decision to be made by a jury. Word v. Henderson, 220 Ga. 846, 142 S.E.2d 244; Howell v. Jackson, 65 Ga.App. 422(2), 16 S.E.2d For the above reasons, I dissent from the judgment of reversal and insist that......
-
Callaway v. O'Connell
...light on the ultimate question.” Critser v. McFadden, 277 Ga. 653, 654, 593 S.E.2d 330, 332 (2004) (quoting Word v. Henderson, 220 Ga. 846, 849, 142 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1965) ). While Callaway contends Dr. Wadsworth posits a standard of care based on O'Connell's locality, Dr. Wadsworth's testi......