Heintz v. Cooper

Citations

• 5 Cal. Unrep. 564
• 47 P. 360
• 1896 Cal. LEXIS 1078

Syllabus

<p>Trial.—A Finding, “That the Matters and Facts Alleged in defendant’s special defense and cross-complaint on file herein, except the allegations of plaintiff’s employment, and agreements under such employment, are untrue in substance and in fact,” supports a judgment for plaintiff, where the answer and cross-complaint both allege that defendant employed plaintiff as a physician and surgeon, for a reward, and that plaintiff undertook the service, whereby defendant was damaged by plaintiff’s negligence and ineompeteney.</p> <p>Physician.—Where Plaintiff Sues for Services as Physician, and defendant, by a cross-complaint, seeks damages for alleged negligent treatment, and plaintiff, in answer, alleges that defendant’s suffering was aggravated by his own negligence and failure to follow plaintiff’s directions, a finding that all the facts alleged in the cross-complaint, except that of plaintiff’s employment, “are untrue,” renders the issue of defendant’s negligence immaterial, and a finding as to it is not required.</p> <p>Physician-—Compensation.—In Determining What is a Reasonable compensation for surgical and medical services in a given ease, the skill and learning of the operator and the character and circumstances of the subject to which he devotes his services must be considered, and the rule that compensation is determined by “the usual price at the time and place of performance” does not necessarily apply.</p> <p>Evidence.—Possible Error in the Exclusion of Evidence, on an issue which could not have affected the judgment, is harmless.</p> <p>Physician—Malpractice.—Before a Witness can Testify on the issue of a physician’s neglect and unskillful practice, his competency must be shown.</p>