Legal Opinion

Kuehnemann v. Boyd

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 5, 1927PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Physicians and surgeons: Malpractice: Degree of skill required: Experttestimony: Patient burned by X-ray treatments: Doctrine of res ipsaloquitur not applicable.

1. In an action by a patient against a physician for malpractice causing an X-ray burn, the burden is on the patient to prove negligence by the physician in administering the X-ray treatments. p. 591.

2. Evidence that a treatment by a machine using two filters did not produce a burn, while a subsequent treatment with one filter removed did produce one, did not prove that the dosage with one filter removed was an overdosage, or that a…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Ewing v. GoodeU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1897
  2. Hunter v. BurroughsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1918
  3. McGraw v. KerrColorado Court of Appeals · 1912
  4. Runyan v. GoodrumSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
  5. Stemons v. TurnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Whetstine v. MoravecSupreme Court of Iowa · 1940
  2. Shier v. FreedmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
  3. Fehrman v. SmirlWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Nowatske v. OsterlohWisconsin Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Stacy v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1934

23 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