Chislett v. Jaros

Appellate Court of Illinois

Chislett v. Jaros

159 Ill. App. 120, 1910 Ill. App. LEXIS 35

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 2, 1910

DocketGen. No. 15,220

StatusPublished

This text of 159 Ill. App. 120 (Chislett v. Jaros) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chislett v. Jaros, 159 Ill. App. 120, 1910 Ill. App. LEXIS 35 (Ill. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant in error, H. E. Chislett, recovered a judgment in the Municipal Court of Chicago for professional services rendered as a surgeon on the son of the plaintiffs in error February 16, 1908. It appears that the patient was suffering from acute, diffusive, suppurative peritonitis, and in the opinion of Dr. Chislett he could be expected to live only a short time unless operated upon, and that medical treatment alone offered no assurance of recovery.

The defense attempted to be made out was that the operation was performed in an improper and careless manner and directly contributed to the death of the boy.

The contentions of the parties and the substantial facts in support of them were placed before the jury. The employment of the plaintiff below was not disputed. It was a question of fact for the jury to determine from the evidence whether the operation was improperly and carelessly performed or not. Some errors intervened in the rulings on evidence, but we are not satisfied from an examination of the record that the judgment is contrary to the law and the evidence, or resulted from substantial errors of the trial court directly affecting the matters at issue between the parties.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant in error, H. E. Chislett, recovered a judgment in the Municipal Court of Chicago for professional services rendered as a surgeon on the son of the plaintiffs in error February 16, 1908. It appears that the patient was suffering from acute, diffusive, suppurative peritonitis, and in the opinion of Dr. Chislett he could be expected to live only a short time unless operated upon, and that medical treatment alone offered no assurance of recovery.

The defense attempted to be made out was that the operation was performed in an improper and careless manner and directly contributed to the death of the boy.

The contentions of the parties and the substantial facts in support of them were placed before the jury. The employment of the plaintiff below was not disputed. It was a question of fact for the jury to determine from the evidence whether the operation was improperly and carelessly performed or not. Some errors intervened in the rulings on evidence, but we are not satisfied from an examination of the record that the judgment is contrary to the law and the evidence, or resulted from substantial errors of the trial court directly affecting the matters at issue between the parties.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 Ill. App. 120, 1910 Ill. App. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chislett-v-jaros-illappct-1910.