Quinn v. Donovan

Citations

• 85 Ill. 194

Syllabus

<p>1. Surgeon—liability for want of skill. A physician and surgeon is required to possess, and in his practice to use, reasonable skill, not the highest, perhaps, but such as physicians in good practice ordinarily use. He can not be regarded as an insurer of a successful result in all cases attended to by him.</p> <p>2. In an action against a surgeon, for mistreatment of the plaintiff’s fractured elbow, the court instructed the jury that if the defendant could have learned the nature of the injury, and applied the proper remedy, and failed to do so, he was liable, was held erroneous, as requiring too great a degree of skill, and as calculated to mislead.</p> <p>3. So, an instruction that “the law holds the defendant liable for damage done, if he was incompetent, and if competent, he is liable, unless he used his full skill and ability, and damage was caused thereby,” was held, erroneous, as requiring too great a degree of skill in the practice.</p> <p>4. Negligence — comparative. A plaintiff may recover for injuries where his negligence is slight as compared with the defendant’s, which is gross.</p> <p>5. Instructions—should be harmonious. One correct instruction will not always cure an erroneous one. The court should harmonize the instructions, else they are calculated to confuse and mislead the jury.</p>