Williams v. Wurdemann

Citations

• 71 Wash. 390
• 128 P. 639
• 1912 Wash. LEXIS 760

Syllabus

<p>Physicians and Surgeons — Malpractice—-Negligence—Evidence —Question for Jury. Whether surgeons were negligent in failing to remove all of the packing and to stop a hemorrhage, following a surgical operation on plaintiff’s nose, is for the jury, where there was evidence tending to show that they failed to do so, and that a speedy recovery followed on its removal by another surgeon.</p> <p>Same — Defenses—Contributory Negligence. Where a patient has been improperly treated, he may quit the treatment at any time, and it is no defense to an action for malpractice that the patient did not return for further treatment, when he found he was not getting along as he should, notwithstanding it was highly probable that had he done so, the treatment would have been changed and a cure effected.</p> <p>Trial — Instructions—Evidence—Pleadings and Issues. . In an action for malpractice, instructions on the theory that the defendants treated the plaintiff as specialists, are proper where the undisputed evidence showed that to be the case, notwithstanding the complaint alleged the cause of action against them as general practitioners.</p> <p>Appeal — -Review—Harmless Error — Instructions. In an action for malpractice, an instruction on the subject of the degree of care required, referring to it as such care and skill as the plaintiff “should expect,” or as the public had a “right to expect” is not prejudicial error, where in the same instruction defendants’ undertaking was specifically stated to be to use “reasonable care and skill,” and also later instructions stated the rule in the language requested by the appellants.</p>