Bates v. Dr. King Co.

77 N.E. 1154, 191 Mass. 585, 1906 Mass. LEXIS 1328
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 17, 1906·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Hammond, J.

The evidence tended to show that the plaintiff was afflicted with syphilis; that it is a contagious disease; that, although the usual way in which it is communicated is by sexual intercourse, it can be communicated in other ways, as for example where a syphilitic sore on a hand or finger, or an instrument, or other object on which there is syphilitic virus, comes in contact with a sore or cut on a person’s body; that the dentist who operated upon the plaintiff used a metal brush,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bates v. Dr. King Co., 77 N.E. 1154, 191 Mass. 585, 1906 Mass. LEXIS 1328 (Mass. 1906).

77 N.E. 1154 (Bates v. Dr. King Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Malone v. Bianchi
61 N.E.2d 1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1945)
Vigneault v. Dr. Hewson Dental Co.
15 N.E.2d 185 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Ernen v.Crofwell
172 N.E. 73 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1930)
Coddaire v. Sibley
169 N.E. 797 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1930)
Morris v. Weene
154 N.E. 860 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
Traverse v. Wing
152 N.E. 354 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1926)
Nevinger v. Haun
196 S.W. 39 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1917)
Drakes v. Tulloch
107 N.E. 916 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)