Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A MALPRACTICE CASE OF EXTRAORDINARY AND UNUSUAL CHARACTER.

A MALPRACTICE CASE OF EXTRAORDINARY AND UNUSUAL CHARACTER. That is the way Richards v. Willard, which was decided July 15, 1896, struck the supreme court of Pennsylvania, and it did not hesitate to say so. The plaintiff claimed damages against the defendant for negligent surgical treatment for an injury to his leg. He alleged that he had sustained a fracture of both bones of his leg at a short distance above the ankle joint, and was treated, not for a fracture but for a sprain, and was thereby greatly injured. If there were no fracture the plaintiff had no case, for he did not contend that the treatment he received was improper treatment for a sprain. The defendant denied most positively that there was a fracture. The singularity of the case arose upon the character of the testimony, and the conflict developed as to the great leading fact. Two surgical witnesses testifying from actual examination, declared that there http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA American Medical Association

A MALPRACTICE CASE OF EXTRAORDINARY AND UNUSUAL CHARACTER.

JAMA , Volume XXVII (8) – Aug 22, 1896

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/a-malpractice-case-of-extraordinary-and-unusual-character-TWTyh600Fm
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1896 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
ISSN
0098-7484
eISSN
1538-3598
DOI
10.1001/jama.1896.02430860045007
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

That is the way Richards v. Willard, which was decided July 15, 1896, struck the supreme court of Pennsylvania, and it did not hesitate to say so. The plaintiff claimed damages against the defendant for negligent surgical treatment for an injury to his leg. He alleged that he had sustained a fracture of both bones of his leg at a short distance above the ankle joint, and was treated, not for a fracture but for a sprain, and was thereby greatly injured. If there were no fracture the plaintiff had no case, for he did not contend that the treatment he received was improper treatment for a sprain. The defendant denied most positively that there was a fracture. The singularity of the case arose upon the character of the testimony, and the conflict developed as to the great leading fact. Two surgical witnesses testifying from actual examination, declared that there

Journal

JAMAAmerican Medical Association

Published: Aug 22, 1896

There are no references for this article.