De Long v. Delaney

55 A. 965, 206 Pa. 226, 1903 Pa. LEXIS 683
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 18, 1903
DocketAppeal, No. 38
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 55 A. 965 (De Long v. Delaney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
De Long v. Delaney, 55 A. 965, 206 Pa. 226, 1903 Pa. LEXIS 683 (Pa. 1903).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff’s husband had his leg badly crushed in attempting to board a railroad train near Cammal station, and defendant, a physician, was called in on the emergency to treat him. Defendant rendered the first aids to the wounded man, washed and dressed the wound, bandaged the leg, and then relinquished the case to the family physician, who was expected, and arrived by the same train on which defendant left. The injured man remained under the care of the family physician for about two hours and then was put on a train and taken to the hospital at Williamsport, where his leg was found to have bled profusely and where he died a few hours later from loss of blood. At the trial the plaintiff proved the foregoing facts, gave some [227]*227evidence that a tourniquet was an instrument in common use among physicians for stopping the flow of blood and that it had not been used by the defendant. Plaintiff then rested her case, and the court entered a nonsuit.

The negligence relied on by appellant is the failure to use a tourniquet. But there was no evidence at all, from any witness competent to express an opinion, that a tourniquet should have been used, or that the tight bandage applied by defendant was not fully equivalent, in short that there was any negligence shown. The jury could only have made an uninformed guess. Negligence cannot be found in that way.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Decker v. Pohlidal
22 Pa. D. & C.2d 631 (Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, 1960)
Robinson v. Wirts
127 A.2d 706 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1956)
Scacchi v. Montgomery
75 A.2d 535 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1950)
Taylor v. Shuffield
52 S.W.2d 788 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Slimak v. Foster
138 A. 153 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1927)
Laughlin v. Christensen
1 F.2d 215 (Eighth Circuit, 1924)
Schumacher v. Murray Hospital
193 P. 397 (Montana Supreme Court, 1920)
Wilkins' Admr. v. Brock
70 A. 572 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 A. 965, 206 Pa. 226, 1903 Pa. LEXIS 683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-long-v-delaney-pa-1903.