Norwood v. Goeddel

Citations

• 58 Pa. Super. 500
• 1914 Pa. Super. LEXIS 338

Syllabus

<p>Negligence—Dentist—Failure to cleanse hand or wash instruments—■ Infection—Evidence.</p> <p>1. In an action against a dentist to recover damages for injuries to the plaintiff’s jaw, the case is for the jury and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff will be sustained where the evidence for the plaintiff tends to show that the defendant after having operated upon a patient for an abscess of the jaw, immediately afterwards, without having washed his hands, or cleansed or sterilized his instruments cut the plaintiff’s gum after having drilled a tooth which was sound, at a point where there was no ulceration, and that a few days afterwards the gum ulcerated resulting in necrosis of the jaw and the ultimate removal of a portion of the jawbone.</p> <p>2. In such a case an expert called by the plaintiff was asked an hypothetical question as follows: “Suppose a person after having lanced an abscess in one patient without washing his hands, undertakes to lance the gums of another patient, but before doing so handles the cutting part of the blade of the knife with his hands or fingers, and that second patient develops an abscess at the point where lanced a few days later, to what would you attribute that abscess? A. Well, to infection.” Held, that the question was a proper one, and that the answer to it should not be ruled out.</p> <p>Orlady, J., dissented.</p>