Lindquist v. Dengel
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHorowitz, J.
This case raises the question whether we must carve out an exception for physicians to the general rule that a tort-feasor is liable for the exacerbation, or augmentation in severity, of a plaintiff's injuries resulting from later medical treatment where the tort-feasor's negligence arguably created the need for that treatment. We hold the rule does apply to physicians and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Respondent Bruce Lindquist first consulted petitioner Dr. Daniel Dengel, a family practitioner, in February 1972. A family practitioner is not considered to be a specialist, and…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- DeNike v. MoweryWashington Supreme Court · 1966
- Owens v. Scott Publishing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1955
- Conrad v. Lakewood General HospitalWashington Supreme Court · 1966
- Martin v. CunninghamWashington Supreme Court · 1916
- Skodje v. HardyWashington Supreme Court · 1955
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Henderson v. TyrrellCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1996
- Cramer v. SlaterIdaho Supreme Court · 2009
- Barrett v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
- George J. Daly, Jr. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Maxwell v. PowersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.