Legal Opinion

Lewis v. Casenburg

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided July 2, 1928PublishedCited by 41 opinions

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

  1. Hunter v. BurroughsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1918
  2. North Memphis Sav. Bank v. Union Bridge & Construction Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1917
  3. McLaughlin Brothers v. HallowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  4. Shockley v. TuckerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
  5. Hamilton v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1920

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

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Seavers v. Methodist Medical Center of Oak RidgeTennessee Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Christie v. CallahanCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
  3. Provident Life & Accident Ins. v. PrietoTennessee Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Quinley v. CockeTennessee Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Sullivan v. CrabtreeCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1953

36 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