Butterfield v. Snellenburg

Citations

• 231 Pa. 88
• 79 A. 980
• 1911 Pa. LEXIS 797

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Harmful drugs — Failure to dilute — Permanent injury— Proximate came — Damages.</p> <p>1. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries where the ground on which recovery is sought is that the defendants, through their agent or clerk in charge of the drug department in their general store, instead of furnishing the plaintiff for immediate use a proper and harmless dose of aromatic spirits of ammonia, for which she had applied, “negligently prepared and compounded a dangerous, poisonous, corrosive and burning liquid mixture,” the negligence charged is sustained by evidence supporting the inference that the dose administered was effective to. produce the injury complained of because not sufficiently diluted, and only because of that circumstance, without evidence that the mixture was compounded of other ingredients than those ordered.</p> <p>2. Whether in such a case a permanent physical weakness manifesting itself in incontinence of urine is an element of damage, depends upon whether there is evidence warranting an inference that the shock produced by the medicine was the sufficient and proximate cause of such a weakness; and where several medical experts on the part of the plaintiff testify that this was in itself sufficient to cause the injury and that “such a nervous shock is entirely competent to produce incontinence of urine under the conditions presented,” this question is for the jury.</p> <p>Mr. Justice Moschzisker dissents.</p>