Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Covington v. James

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 22, 1938Published

1Concurrence

Stacy, C. J.,

concurs on the ground that what was done while plaintiff was unconscious or under the influence of an anesthetic calls for explanation in view of defendant’s purported statement and the results obtained, but does not assent to the position that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies generally to the case. Smith v. McClung, 201 N. C., 648, 161 *77S. E., 91; Springs v. Doll, 197 N. C., 240, 148 S. E., 251; Byrd v. Hospital, 202 N. C., 337, 162 S. E., 738.

It is no evidence of negligence for a physician to reset a fractured. fibula in the left leg, place it in a plaster cast and…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Nash v. . RoysterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  2. Springs v. . DollSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  3. Pendergraft v. RoysterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  4. Pendergraft v. . RoysterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  5. Byrd v. Marion General HospitalSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932

11 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