Lewis v. Casenburg
Tennessee Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McKinney
By this suit the plaintiff sought to recover damages resulting from an X-ray burn inflicted upon his intestate, Mrs. Lewis.
The defense interposed was the idiosyncrasy or super-sensitiveness of the patient to the X-ray.
Prom the authorities it appears that this is about the only defense available in such case.
By idiosyncrasy it is meant that one patient is more •susceptible to a burn than some other patient under similar conditions; a departure from normal.
The trial court, at the conclusion of all the evidence, sustained a motion by the defendant for a directed verdict.
Upon appeal the Court of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hunter v. BurroughsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1918
- North Memphis Sav. Bank v. Union Bridge & Construction Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1917
- McLaughlin Brothers v. HallowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Shockley v. TuckerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Hamilton v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1920
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Seavers v. Methodist Medical Center of Oak RidgeTennessee Supreme Court · 1999
- Christie v. CallahanCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. v. PrietoTennessee Supreme Court · 1935
- Quinley v. CockeTennessee Supreme Court · 1946
- Sullivan v. CrabtreeCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1953
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.