Young v. Wadsworth
| Decision Date | 27 February 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 68434,68434 |
| Parties | Thomas E. and Lavada R. YOUNG, Kathie Marie Young, and Joseph Daniel Smith, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Harry Lee WADSWORTH, M.D., and St. Louis Medical Clinic, P.C., Defendants/Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John L. Anderson, Judge.
James B. Herd, Matthew J. Sauter, Deeba Sauter Herd, St. Louis, for appellants.
John G. Doyen, David G. Ott, Aaron I. Mandel, Brinker, Doyen & Kovacs, P.C., Clayton, for respondents.
Plaintiffs appeal from the action of the trial court in granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended petition for damages. We affirm.
We set forth the pertinent allegations of plaintiffs' petition. William Greenblatt consulted Dr. Wadsworth at St. Louis Medical Clinic on July 10, 1992. He gave a history of recent complaints of light headedness, nausea, and vomiting, episodes of shakings and tremors, that he had experienced a "near" blackout while driving his vehicle approximately six weeks prior to consulting Dr. Wadsworth, and on July 9 he had an "acute blackout and fainting spell" while using a telephone at his residence. Based upon the history given and an examination, Dr. Wadsworth diagnosed syncope 1 of unknown etiology which included a combination of low blood sugar, cardiac and/or neurological disorders, thyroid disease, depression, anxiety and situational distress. He prescribed Xanax for Greenblatt's use, recommended that he increase his meals to six per day, outfitted him with a Holter Monitor to monitor his heart rhythms, and encouraged Greenblatt to go about his normal activities. Xanax is a medicine commonly prescribed for the treatment of depression and anxiety with known medical side effects of drowsiness or light headedness. There is no allegation that Greenblatt had filled the prescription or had taken the Xanax and in their reply brief plaintiffs concede that they have no evidence that Greenblatt had taken Xanax at the time of the accident. Sometime that afternoon, after leaving the doctor's office Greenblatt, while driving on Highway 30 suffered a blackout spell causing him to crash into a vehicle operated by Connie Morgan, and occupied by Kathie Young and Joseph Smith. Morgan was killed and Young and Smith were injured. This suit for damages for Morgan's wrongful death and Young and Smith's injuries followed.
Plaintiffs premise Dr. Wadsworth's liability on his failure to warn Greenblatt not to drive in his physical condition and while taking Xanax. The concession in plaintiffs' reply brief effectively removes the Xanax from the case.
The parties discuss at length the issue of defendant's duty to plaintiffs as general members of the public and not as specifically identified potential victims. We do not consider it necessary to address the somewhat fluid area of the law involving the duty of a professional to persons other than clients or patients for negligence in failing to preclude injury to those parties. See Donahue v. Shughart, Thomson and Kilroy, 900 S.W.2d 624 (Mo. banc 1995); Aluma Kraft Manufacturing Company v. Elmer Fox & Company, 493 S.W.2d 378 (Mo.App.1973); Sherrill v. Wilson, 653 S.W.2d 661 (Mo. banc 1983); Matt v. Burrell, Inc., 892 S.W.2d 796 (Mo.App.1995).
We address instead the interwoven aspects of duty to warn Greenblatt and proximate cause. The only claim of negligence is that Dr. Wadsworth failed to warn Greenblatt not to drive a car. There is no allegation that Greenblatt was of other than normal intelligence. Greenblatt had two prior episodes of blackouts, one while operating a motor vehicle and one the day before he saw Dr. Wadsworth. He reported both of these episodes to Dr. Wadsworth so the doctor knew that Greenblatt was aware of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coombes v. Florio
...dangers of driving when patient knew medication caused drowsiness and impaired her ability to operate automobile); Young v. Wadsworth, 916 S.W.2d 877, 878 (Mo.Ct.App. 1996) (no duty to warn patient with history of blackouts not to drive where danger of doing so was open and obvious). Under ......
-
Thompson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
...to the applicability of the open and obvious doctrine in a negligent failure to warn claim, B & W and PM USA rely on Young v. Wadsworth, 916 S.W.2d 877 (Mo. App. E.D.1996). In Young, the estate of a driver who was killed in a car accident, along with her injured passengers, sued a physician......
-
Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, No. WD 65542 (Mo. App. 7/31/2007)
...B&W asserts there is no duty if the risk of injury was open and obvious to the plaintiff or commonly known, citing Young v. Wadsworth, 916 S.W.2d 877, 878 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996). It contends the health risks associated with smoking have long been matters of public knowledge and were well know......
-
Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
...& W asserts there is no duty if the risk of injury was open and obvious to the plaintiff or commonly known, citing Young v. Wadsworth, 916 S.W.2d 877, 878 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). It contends the health risks associated with smoking have long been matters of public knowledge and were well known ......