Legal Opinion

King v. Ditto

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 21, 1933PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBelt, J.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of an alleged improper use of an X-ray machine. Plaintiff employed the defendants, who are duly licensed physicians and surgeons, to remove a needle which had become imbedded in her right hand.

Plaintiff alleged, and there was evidence tending to show, that the defendants were negligent in exposing her hand to X-rays in such manner as to result in a serious and permanent injury. Plaintiff testified, in substance, that, in accordance with the direction of the defendants, she held her hand in front of the X-ray…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Hunter v. BurroughsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1918
  2. Timmins v. HaleOregon Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Ballance v. DunningtonMichigan Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Lewis v. CasenburgTennessee Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Matter of Application of La DueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Purtill v. HessIllinois Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Natanson v. KlineSupreme Court of Kansas · 1960
  3. Getchell v. MansfieldOregon Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Rogers v. Meridian Park HospitalOregon Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Strandholm v. General Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1963

20 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