Legal Opinion

Smith v. Luckett

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided September 8, 1980No. 60332PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Deen, Chief Judge.

C. Winfred Smith and his wife brought a medical malpractice suit against the defendant alleging that Dr. Luckett had negligently performed a venogram upon Judge Smith and that he had also committed a battery because the procedure was done without consent. Mrs. Smith claimed damages for loss of consortium. Appeal is brought by the Smiths following the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict in favor of the defendant.

1. The trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict as to the issue of battery. The record shows that Mrs. Smith signed the consent form authorizing…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mims v. BolandCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
  2. Kuttner v. SwansonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1939
  3. Fain v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1980
  4. Washington v. City of ColumbusCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Roderic R. McDowell v. Pernell BrownCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2004
  2. Hawkins v. GreenbergCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
  3. Barham v. LevyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1997
  4. Bhansali v. MoncadaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2005
  5. Fox v. CohenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API