Sweeney v. Erving
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE DISTRICT OP. COLUMBIA. The facts, which involve the liability of a medical specialist for injuries caused by burns resulting from an X-ray operation performed by him on the patient of another physician, are stated in the opinion. Expert testimony was not essential in order to prpve negligence, as in cases against physicians , and surgeons. Vaughan v. Menlove, 3 Bing. N. C. 468, 475; Oceanic Steam Nav.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE DISTRICT OP. COLUMBIA. The facts, which involve the liability of a medical specialist for injuries caused by burns resulting from an X-ray operation performed by him on the patient of another physician, are stated in the opinion. Expert testimony was not essential in order to prpve negligence, as in cases against physicians , and surgeons. Vaughan v. Menlove, 3 Bing. N. C. 468, 475; Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Aitken, 196 U. S. 589, 596. The injury' to plaintiff was caused by an agency in the possession of the defendant and under his exclusive management and…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Pitney
The plaintiff in error, who was likewise the plaintiff below, sued the defendant in error in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to recover damages for personal injuries, sustained, as was alleged, through his neg.ligence in the making of certain X-ray tests -upon her body with the use of apparatus owned .and operated by him. The. defendant pleaded the general issue — “not guilty.” Upon the trial, plaintiff adduced evidence tending to prove that she was under treatment by Dr..Kerr, a surgeon of the City of Washington, for the fracture of a rib, claimed by her to have been caused by…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Patton v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Inland & Seaboard Coasting Co. v. TolsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Pennsylvania Co. v. RoySupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Stokes v. SaltonstallSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Gleeson v. Virginia Midland RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by541 opinions
- Jerry W. Canterbury v. William Thornton Spence and the Washington Hospital Center, a Body CorporateCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1972
- Mobil Chemical Company v. BellTexas Supreme Court · 1974
- Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Commercial Molasses Corp. v. New York Tank Barge Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- George Foltis, Inc. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1941
536 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.