Covington v. James
Supreme Court of North Carolina
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
- Nash v. . RoysterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Springs v. . DollSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- Pendergraft v. RoysterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Pendergraft v. . RoysterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Byrd v. Marion General HospitalSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.