Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
After the former appeal reported in 141 Minn. 154, 169 N. W. 541, the motion of defendants Bosenwald and Andrews in the district court for Bine Earth county for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial was denied, Comstock, J. From the judgment entered February 24, 1919, and from the order denying their'motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendants Bosenwald and Andrews appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtHallam, J.
Plaintiff’s intestate, a young man in good general health, submitted to an operation, under the influence of ether, for the removal of his tonsils» The ether was administered and-the operation performed by defendants Andrews and Rosenwald. The ether used was manufactured by defendant Parke, Davis & Company. Deceased never recovered from the administration of the ether, and died as á result of it in a few hours. That'there was fault somewhere was clear. Plaintiff charged the defendant surgeons with malpractice and defendant Parke, Davis & Company, with negligently putting on sale ether unfit…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Staloch v. HolmSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Dubois v. . DeckerNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Getchell v. HillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Martin v. Walter CourtneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Christy v. SalitermanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
- Miller v. RaaenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
- Jensen v. LinnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
- Dunn v. BeckMontana Supreme Court · 1927
- Harju v. AllenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.