McIlvaine v. Lutz

Citations

• 57 Pa. Super. 527
• 1914 Pa. Super. LEXIS 229

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Druggist—Negligent compounding of prescription — Pleading — Evidence—Variance.</p> <p>In an action of trespass against a druggist to recover damages for personal injuries charged to have been caused by the negligent act of the defendant in substituting a deadly poison for a harmless drug in a prescription, without any averment in the statement that the prescription had been filled twice, and that the negligent act occurred when the prescription was first filled, there is no fatal variance between the pleadings and the proof, where the evidence showed that the prescription had been filled twice, that on the first occasion it had been filled accurately, and that the negligent act occurred at the second filling.</p>