Legal Opinion

Covington v. James

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 22, 1938PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

Tbe court below allowed defendant’s motion to nonsuit upon tbe theory tbat in tbe absence of expert testimony tbe evidence, serious as it is, is not sufficient to go to tbe jury on tbe issue of defendant’s failure to exercise due skill and care in bis treatment of plaintiff.

We are urged to adopt tbe view tbat recovery cannot be bad in any suit against a physician or surgeon for malpractice in tbe absence of expert medical testimony, except where tbe facts give rise to tbe application of tbe doctrine res ipsa loquitur. Pendergraft v. Royster, 203 N. C., 384; Ferguson v. Glenn, 201 N. C., 128;…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Nash v. . RoysterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  2. Slimak v. FosterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
  3. Pendergraft v. RoysterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  4. Donahoo v. LovasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  5. Ferguson v. . GlennSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Whetstine v. MoravecSupreme Court of Iowa · 1940
  2. Smith v. Gulf Oil Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  3. Smith v. . Duke UniversitySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  4. Mitchell v. . SaundersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  5. Mitchell v. SaundersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941

14 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