JAMES B. LATTA, APPELLANT,
v.
HILBERT S. SABIN, APPELLEE
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 jury's verdict was supported by the record and that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying a new trial.
Plaintiff sued a surgeon for malpractice, breach of warranty, and unauthorized operation. The trial court directed a verdict for the surgeon on neglig…
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 Jury Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHER, Circuit Judge.
The District Judge directed a verdict in favor of the appellee on the issue of negligence in a malpractice action. The appellant did not sustain his burden of proving that the surgeon had failed to exercise that degree of care and skill required by the standard of practice which the appellee was bound to afford to the appellant as his patient.1 The appellant’s claims as to breach of warranty and unauthorized operation were submitted to the jury pursuant to adequate instructions, adapted to the issues.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellant awarding damages equal to the amount of the surgeon’s charge for his services. The award is now attacked, as grossly inadequate.
The jury might have decided that except for a comparatively minor phase of the surgery, the special damages claimed by appellant were actually attributable to a later operation by other surgeons. The jury might also have concluded that no credence could be placed in the appellant’s claim that the doctor had warranted a particular result. In any event, no special interrogatories had been submitted to the jury, and its general verdict is not without support in the record. The trial judge denied the appellant’s motion for a new trial. Our review of the record does not disclose such abuse of discretion as to require reversal.2
We have examined other contentions of the appellant in respect of certain rulings on evidence as to which we find no error. The judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
. Rodgers v. Lawson, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 170 F. 2d 157 (1948); and see Brown v. Keaveny, 117 U.S.App.D.C. -, 326 F. 2d 660 (rehearing en banc denied).
. Hulett v. Brinson, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 139, 140, 229 F. 2d 22, 23, cert. denied, 350 U.S. 1014, 76 S.Ct. 659, 100 L.Ed. 874 (1956) ; cf. Muldrow v. Daly, 117 U.S.App.D.C. -, -F. 2d- (1964) ; Association of Western Railways v. Riss & Company, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 49, 52, 299 F. 2d 133, 136, cert. denied, 370 U.S. 916, 82 S.Ct. 1555, 8 L.Ed.2d 498 (1962).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henderson v. Milobsky, 595 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1978)
Authorities Cited
- Rodgers v. Lawson, 170 F.2d 157 (D.C. Cir. 1948)
- Orren Hulett v. Emmitt L. Brinson, 229 F.2d 22 (D.C. Cir. 1955)
- Ass'n OF W. Railways v. Riss & Co., Inc., 299 F.2d 133 (D.C. Cir. 1962)
- Brown v. Keaveny, 326 F.2d 660 (D.C. Cir. 1963)
- Deskin v. Pazan, 350 U.S. 1014 (U.S. 1956)
- Hulett v. Brinson, 350 U.S. 1014 (U.S. 1956)
- Ouachita Parish Sch. Bd. v. State of La., 370 U.S. 916 (U.S. 1962)
- Von der Heydt v. Kennedy, 370 U.S. 916 (U.S. 1962)