CHAMBERS
v.
TOBIN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to present the case to the jury, and the trial court erred in rejecting certain evidence.
Plaintiff sued a surgeon for negligence in treating a broken wrist, alleging deformity and disability due to overly tight casts. Plaintiff offered evi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Medical Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from a judgment entered upon a directed verdict in favor of defendant (appellee), a surgeon, in a damage action alleging negligence in setting and treating a broken wrist of plaintiff (appellant), resulting in deformity and disability to the forearm and hand. The verdict was directed at close of plaintiff’s case in chief, so the question is whether her evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury.
The evidence in part showed that the fracture was of a common type, known as a “Colle’s fracture”; that the usual period for a union was from four to eight weeks; that casts applied by defendant during a period of postoperative treatment were too tight; and that a state of severe contraction developed. Plaintiff offered to prove that the usual prognosis is good in the case of a Colle’s fracture, with only slight widening of the wrist, and that the functioning of the hand, wrist and arm is usually unaffected. This evidence upon objection was rejected, — erroneously we think.
A careful consideration of all the evidence, construed most favorably to plaintiff, with the benefit of every legitimate inference, leads us to conclude that it brings the case fairly within the scope of our opinion in Goodwin v. Hertzberg, 91 U.S. App.D.C. 385, 201 F. 2d 204 (December 22, 1952),1 and cases referred to therein. See also Crist v. White, 1933, 62 App.D.C. 269, 66 F. 2d 795.
The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Reversed.
. The opinion was filed after trial of the present case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Furr v. Herzmark, 206 F.2d 468 (D.C. Cir. 1953)
-
MacHanic v. Storey, 317 F.2d 151 (D.C. Cir. 1963)
-
Zimmerman v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 410 F.2d 1041 (D.C. Cir. 1969)
Authorities Cited
- Goodwin v. Hertzberg, 201 F.2d 204 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
- Crist v. White, 66 F.2d 795 (D.C. Cir. 1933)