Henzi v. Benezra

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Henzi v. Benezra

161 Misc. 490, 292 N.Y.S. 392, 1936 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1591

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 16, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 161 Misc. 490 (Henzi v. Benezra) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Henzi v. Benezra, 161 Misc. 490, 292 N.Y.S. 392, 1936 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cubiam.

Plaintiff was operated on by defendant. She was wholly or partly under anesthesia for several hours during which time her adenoids were removed. After the operation she was returned to her bed in the hospital. Twenty-four hours later she noticed a tooth was injured. There is expert opinion evidence that the injury was of traumatic origin. Plaintiff claims that the rule of res ipsa loquitur applies and that she established a prima facie case of negligence on the part of defendant, the operating physician.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is based on the consideration that control of the thing that produced the injury is exclusively with defendant. (Stater v. Barnes, 241 N. Y. 284.)

During a large part of the period between the administration of the ether and the discovery of the injury, plaintiff was not under defendant’s care but that of the hospital. Under such circumstances plaintiff failed to establish defendant’s liability. Judgment affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs.

All concur. Present — Ltd on, Levy and Callahan, JJ.

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

Pee Cubiam.

Plaintiff was operated on by defendant. She was wholly or partly under anesthesia for several hours during which time her adenoids were removed. After the operation she was returned to her bed in the hospital. Twenty-four hours later she noticed a tooth was injured. There is expert opinion evidence that the injury was of traumatic origin. Plaintiff claims that the rule of res ipsa loquitur applies and that she established a prima facie case of negligence on the part of defendant, the operating physician.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is based on the consideration that control of the thing that produced the injury is exclusively with defendant. (Stater v. Barnes, 241 N. Y. 284.)

During a large part of the period between the administration of the ether and the discovery of the injury, plaintiff was not under defendant’s care but that of the hospital. Under such circumstances plaintiff failed to establish defendant’s liability. Judgment affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs.

All concur. Present — Ltd on, Levy and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 Misc. 490, 292 N.Y.S. 392, 1936 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henzi-v-benezra-nyappterm-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack