(DOWNLOAD) "St. George v. Boucher Et Al." by Supreme Court of Montana ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: St. George v. Boucher Et Al.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 19, 1930
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 59 KB
Description
1. Trial. Weight of testimony is for jury. 2. Physicians and surgeons — Questions for jury. In an action against a dentist for injuries resulting from the extraction of a tooth and treatment after extraction, whether the dentist was negligent in the extraction of the tooth, and whether he was negligent in failing to go to the patient immediately upon being advised that the patient was bleeding severely from the tooth socket, were for the jury. 3. Physicians and surgeons — Evidence insufficient to go to jury. The evidence that the infection resulting from leaving the cotton pack in the cavity for 11 days after the extraction of the tooth was caused by negligence of the dentist was insufficient for the jury. 4. Trial — Withdrawing case from jury, when. Cause of action should not be withdrawn from the jury unless conclusion from the facts necessarily follows, as a matter of law, that no recovery could be had upon any view which could reasonably be drawn from the facts which the evidence tends to establish. 5. Physicians and surgeons — Infection due to intervening cause. The infection caused by the packing was not the natural probable consequence of or approximately due to the manner of extracting the tooth but was due to the independent intervening cause of allowing packing to remain in the cavity too long. 6. Physicians and surgeons — Rule of care in dentistry. A dentist in the conduct of his profession is governed by the rules applicable to a physician and surgeon in respect to the degree of care and skill required in the treatment of a patient. 7. Physicians and surgeons — Community rule of care. A dentist assumes toward patient the obligations to exercise such reasonable care and skill as is usually exercised by a dentist in good standing of the community in which he resides. 8. Physicians and surgeons — Duty of dentist to patient. A dentist extracting tooth owed duty to patient while under his care to see that the patient did not leave his office while there remained danger of hemorrhage and the further duty, on being advised of the patients condition, to immediately render such care and attention as was reasonably necessary to relieve the patients condition. 9. Physicians and surgeons — Verdict scaled down. Verdict of $12,500 against the dentist for injuries to a patient from negligence in extraction of tooth was excessive and new trial would be granted unless the patient consented to reduction to $4,000. Page 231