Bates v. Dr. King Co.
This text of 77 N.E. 1154 (Bates v. Dr. King Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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,
The evidence also showed that to prevent the inoculation of their patients it is the habit of dentists to disinfect by boiling water or otherwise their instruments, and there was testimony that the defendant was in the habit of using such means of dis[587]*587infection. But the extent and thoroughness with which this was done by the defendant was for the jury.
Without reciting further the evidence in detail, we are constrained to say that the questions whether the plaintiff was inoculated with the disease by means of contact with the implements used by the dentist in cleaning her teeth, and whether this result is attributable to the want of proper care on the part of the defendant as to the cleanliness of the implements, are upon the evidence questions for the jury.
Exceptions sustained.
This was a circular metal disk about one inch in diameter fitted to a handle, which was attached to a wheel machine operated by foot power, which made the brush revolve.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
77 N.E. 1154, 191 Mass. 585, 1906 Mass. LEXIS 1328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bates-v-dr-king-co-mass-1906.