Dictz v. Aronson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dictz v. Aronson

244 A.D. 746

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 244 A.D. 746 (Dictz v. Aronson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dictz v. Aronson, 244 A.D. 746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits at the close of the plaintiffs’ ease in an action to recover damages for alleged malpractice of the defendant, a physician, as the result of an operation performed on the infant plaintiff for removal of his tonsils, reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. We are of opinion that the court erred in refusing to permit the jury to examine the infant plaintiff’s throat to determine the results of the operation by comparison with the diagram, in evidence, of a eoncededly normal throat. We may not say that the injuries of which the plaintiff complains would require more than a layman’s knowledge of cause and effect. (Shaw v. Tagne, 257 N. Y. 193; Benson v. Dean, 232 id. 52; Carpenter v. Blake, 75 id. 12; Pelky v. Kivlin, 199 App. Div. 114.) Proof of injuries resulting from the operation, if there be such proof, taken together with the proved admission by the defendant that “ I cut it just a little too far ” and all the other proofs and circumstances in the case, constitutes, in our opinion, a prima facie case, Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Scudder, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits at the close of the plaintiffs’ ease in an action to recover damages for alleged malpractice of the defendant, a physician, as the result of an operation performed on the infant plaintiff for removal of his tonsils, reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. We are of opinion that the court erred in refusing to permit the jury to examine the infant plaintiff’s throat to determine the results of the operation by comparison with the diagram, in evidence, of a eoncededly normal throat. We may not say that the injuries of which the plaintiff complains would require more than a layman’s knowledge of cause and effect. (Shaw v. Tagne, 257 N. Y. 193; Benson v. Dean, 232 id. 52; Carpenter v. Blake, 75 id. 12; Pelky v. Kivlin, 199 App. Div. 114.) Proof of injuries resulting from the operation, if there be such proof, taken together with the proved admission by the defendant that “ I cut it just a little too far ” and all the other proofs and circumstances in the case, constitutes, in our opinion, a prima facie case, Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Scudder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D. 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dictz-v-aronson-nyappdiv-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack