Getchell v. Hill
Supreme Court of Minnesota
'Action against the defendants, Drs. Hill and Lindley, as partners, to recover damages for alleged malpractice in their treatment of plaintiff’s broken arm. At the trial in the district court for Hennepin county, before Vanderburgh, J., the plaintiff had a verdict for $4,000. A new trial was refused, and the defendants appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Gileillan, C. J.1
This is an action for malpractice as surgeons, in which plaintiff had a verdict. There are exceptions taken to the charge of the court; but as we find it necessary to set aside the verdict, on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain it, we do not deem it necessary to passmpon those exceptions.
A physician or surgeon is not an insurer that he will effect a cure. He is held to a reasonable amount of diligence and skill, unless he contracts to do more, and is liable only for injuries that result from his neglect to exercise that degree of diligence and skill. It…
2Cited by44 opinions
- Christy v. SalitermanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
- Nash v. . RoysterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Staloch v. HolmSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Lanier v. TrammellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
- Viita v. FlemingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.