Jackson v. Tucker

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jackson v. Tucker

165 S.E.2d 466, 118 Ga. App. 693, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 969

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 21, 1968

Docket43815

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 165 S.E.2d 466 (Jackson v. Tucker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jackson v. Tucker, 165 S.E.2d 466, 118 Ga. App. 693, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 969 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Eberhardt, Judge.

1. It is the general rule in this jurisdiction that expert medical testimony is required to show negligence respecting a physician’s or surgeon’s service to his patient. Pilgrim v. Landham, 63 Ga. App. 451 (4) (11 SE2d 420); Shea v. Phillips, 213 Ga. 269 (2) (98 SE2d 552); Hayes v. Brown, 108 Ga. App. 360, 363 (1) (133 SE2d 102); Murphy v. Little, 112 Ga. App. 517, 518 (1) (145 SE2d 760). And this rule is applicable where on defendant’s motion for summary judgment plaintiff offers only his own lay affidavit in opposition to defendant’s medical testimony. Hollis v. St. Joseph Infirmary, 108 Ga. App. 309 (132 SE2d 841). The only exceptions to this rule are where facts, although connected with medicine, are so well known as not to require expert testimony to place them before the jury, or where the case concerns matters which juries must be credited with knowing by reason of common knowledge. See Pilgrim v. Landham, 63 Ga. App. 451, 454, supra; Shea v. Phillips, 213 Ga. 269 (2), supra; Summerour v. Lee, 104 Ga. App. 73, 74 (2) (121 SE2d 80).

2. The facts of this case do not bring it within any exception to the general rule requiring medical testimony to show medical malpractice, and accordingly there was no error in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Cf. Murphy v. Little, supra; Summerour v. Lee, supra; Hollis v. St. Joseph Infirmary, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Whitman, J., concur.

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

Eberhardt, Judge.

1. It is the general rule in this jurisdiction that expert medical testimony is required to show negligence respecting a physician’s or surgeon’s service to his patient. Pilgrim v. Landham, 63 Ga. App. 451 (4) (11 SE2d 420); Shea v. Phillips, 213 Ga. 269 (2) (98 SE2d 552); Hayes v. Brown, 108 Ga. App. 360, 363 (1) (133 SE2d 102); Murphy v. Little, 112 Ga. App. 517, 518 (1) (145 SE2d 760). And this rule is applicable where on defendant’s motion for summary judgment plaintiff offers only his own lay affidavit in opposition to defendant’s medical testimony. Hollis v. St. Joseph Infirmary, 108 Ga. App. 309 (132 SE2d 841). The only exceptions to this rule are where facts, although connected with medicine, are so well known as not to require expert testimony to place them before the jury, or where the case concerns matters which juries must be credited with knowing by reason of common knowledge. See Pilgrim v. Landham, 63 Ga. App. 451, 454, supra; Shea v. Phillips, 213 Ga. 269 (2), supra; Summerour v. Lee, 104 Ga. App. 73, 74 (2) (121 SE2d 80).

2. The facts of this case do not bring it within any exception to the general rule requiring medical testimony to show medical malpractice, and accordingly there was no error in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Cf. Murphy v. Little, supra; Summerour v. Lee, supra; Hollis v. St. Joseph Infirmary, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Whitman, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 S.E.2d 466, 118 Ga. App. 693, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-tucker-gactapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack