W. R. PALMER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JAMES M. JACKSON, JR., DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for a physician, holding that a medical malpractice claim based on negligent treatment was an "obligation or liability not founded upon an instrument of writing" and was thus barred by the three-year statute of limitations.
Yes, the court held that the action was based on an obligation or liability not founded upon a written instrument and was therefore subject to the three-year statute of limitations.
“Thus considered the action was upon a “obligation or liability not founded upon an instrument of writing,” and was barred in three years.”
This quote explains the court's classification of the cause of action and its application of the statute of limitations.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceW. R. Palmer sued Dr. James M. Jackson, Jr. for damages resulting from alleged careless, negligent, and unskillful medical treatment provided on June …
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 Negligent Medical Treatment cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
— On February 11th, 1910, W. R. Palmer commenced an action against James M. Jackson, Jr., a physician, to recover damages for injuries caused by the defendant’s Careless, negligent and unskillful medical treatment of the plaintiff whom he had undertaken to treat on June 25th, 1906.
The defendant pleaded not guilty and also that the cause of action did not accrue within three years before the action was commenced. A demurrer to the latter plea was overruled, and the plaintiff not desiring to amend his declaration, final judgment for the defendant was entered. Plaintiff took a writ of error which was duly recorded thereby giving this court jurisdiction of the defendant in error who is not represented by counsel here.
The declaration alleges that the defendant did “undertake the treatment of” the plaintiff; and that “It was the duty of the defendant as physician to properly and skillfully treat the plaintiff;” but the defendant did so carelessly, negligently and unskillfully treat the plaintiff that he was thereby injured. These allegations are applicable to a tort growing out of a contract and they do not exclude the existence of an express or implied verbal contract relation between the parties which is usual in such cases.
Thus considered the action was upon a “obligation or liability not founded upon an instrument of writing,” and was barred in three years. Sec. 1725, subdivision 5 Gen. Stats.
The judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur. Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Slaughter v. Tyler, 126 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1936)…efendant. The declaration alleges that Anna Lee Slaughter, the plaintiff, is a minor. So, the question presented here is whether or not the statute of limitations with respect to personal injury actions runs against a minor. In Palmer v. Jackson, 62 Fla. 249, 57 Sou. 240, this Court held that an action against a physician for malpractice is barred by the statute of limitation prescribed in paragraph 5 of Section 2939 R. G. S., 4663 C. G. L., which is as follows: “5. Within Three Years. — 1. An action u…
-
Manning v. Serrano, 97 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1957)…) of the same section, is applicable to a suit against a physician for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff because of the defendant physician’s negligence or unskillful treatment. The lower court, relying upon Palmer v. Jackson, 1911, 62 Fla. 249, 57 So. 240, held that the three-year limitations period was applicable and dismissed plain [*689] tiff’s suit. This appeal by plaintiff followed. Subsection (5) (e) of Sec. 95.11 specifically prescribes a limitation period of three years for “an a…