Sauers v. Smits

Citations

• 49 Wash. 557
• 95 P. 1097
• 1908 Wash. LEXIS 620

Syllabus

<p>PHYSICIAN'S AND SURGEONS-MALPRACTICE-EVIDENCE-SUFFICIENCY —Question for Jury. Upon conflicting evidence in an action for malpractice in treating a foot by exposure to X-rays, the question of the negligence of the defendant is for the jury, where there was evidence warranting a finding that the foot was severely burned by the X-rays, and the treatment improper, and that the injury was caused by negligence in placing the tubes too near and without any shield.</p> <p>Same — Liability—Defenses—Ignorance of Physician. Ignorance as to the effect of X-ray exposures would be no defense to an action for malpractice in negligently causing an X-ray burn, but rather might make the use thereof negligence per se.</p> <p>Same — Instructions—Contributory Negligence of Patient. In an action for malpractice in negligently causing an X-ray burn of a. foot, it is error to instruct the jury that the plaintiff could not recover if she quit the treatment before she should have done so, or if she failed to follow the physician’s directions with reasonable care; since such acts adding to the damages did not co-operate in causing the injury or bar a recovery for the irfjury done.</p> <p>Same. In such a case, it is error to instruct that any injury resulting from the negligence of the patient would bar a recovery.</p>