Hallam v. Means

Citations

• 82 Ill. 379

Syllabus

<p>1. Physicians and surgeons—degree of care and skill required. While, perhaps, persons who hold themselves out to the public as physicians and surgeons, would not be required to possess the highest degree of skill which the most learned might acquire in the profession, yet they are bound to possess, and in their practice to exercise, that degree of skill which is ordinarily possessed by physicians in practice.</p> <p>2. And where an injury results from a want of ordinary skill, or from a failure to exercise proper diligence and caution in the treatment of a case, the physician must be held responsible.</p> <p>3. In this case a person had his leg broken. The fracture of the larger bone was oblique, and near the upper part of the lower third of the limb.</p> <p>The fracture of the smaller bone was nearly transverse, and was from two to three inches above the ankle joint. A surgeon was called within twenty minutes after the accident. In consequence of the want of care or skill on the part of the surgeon the broken leg was shortened three-fourths of an inch. A judgment against the surgeon for §1000 damages was affirmed.</p> <p>4. It was held to have been the duty of the attending surgeon, according to the medical testimony adduced, to adjust the fracture and extend the limb to its original length, and when this was accomplished and the bones placed in apposition, use those appliances in general use among surgeons which are best calculated and will hold the limb in proper position and at its original length.</p> <p>o. However, if the character of the injury received be such that the patient could not endure extension and counter extension, then a failure to resort to those appliances would not show a want of skill, or negligence on the part of the surgeon.</p>