Nye v. Clark

Appellate Court of Illinois

Nye v. Clark

193 Ill. App. 505

DecidedApril 16, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 193 Ill. App. 505 (Nye v. Clark) 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

Nye v. Clark, 193 Ill. App. 505 (Ill. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Physicians and surgeons, § 22*—when evidence sufficient to sustain verdict for defendant in action for malpractice. A verdict for the defendant in an action against a surgeon for unsuccessfully grafting skin to the plaintiffs empty eyesocket for the purpose of permitting the use of an artificial eye, held sustained by the evidence, where twenty-four years before a similar operation proved unsuccessful, as did two other operations performed after that of the defendant. 3. Evidence, § 440*—sufficiency of objection to hypothetical question. Objections to hypothetical questions put to expert witnesses must specifically point out the grounds thereof. 4. Physicians and surgeons, § 23*—instruction as to shill of specialist. An instruction in an action against a specialist for malpractice, given at the request of the defendant, to the effect that he was held to the exercise of ordinary skill only, is not erroneous where a similar instruction was given at the request of the plaintiff.

Scholfield, J., took no part in the consideration of this case.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Physicians and surgeons, § 22*—when evidence sufficient to sustain verdict for defendant in action for malpractice. A verdict for the defendant in an action against a surgeon for unsuccessfully grafting skin to the plaintiffs empty eyesocket for the purpose of permitting the use of an artificial eye, held sustained by the evidence, where twenty-four years before a similar operation proved unsuccessful, as did two other operations performed after that of the defendant. 3. Evidence, § 440*—sufficiency of objection to hypothetical question. Objections to hypothetical questions put to expert witnesses must specifically point out the grounds thereof. 4. Physicians and surgeons, § 23*—instruction as to shill of specialist. An instruction in an action against a specialist for malpractice, given at the request of the defendant, to the effect that he was held to the exercise of ordinary skill only, is not erroneous where a similar instruction was given at the request of the plaintiff.

Scholfield, J., took no part in the consideration of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 Ill. App. 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nye-v-clark-illappct-1915.