Paine v. Flynn

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Paine v. Flynn

9 R.I. Dec. 41

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedAugust 1, 1932

DocketNo. 80390

StatusPublished

This text of 9 R.I. Dec. 41 (Paine v. Flynn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paine v. Flynn, 9 R.I. Dec. 41 (R.I. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

CAPOTOSTO, J.

Action for malpractice in the treatment of a broken arm. Verdict for defendant. Motion for new trial based on the usual grounds.

The controversy centered about the question as to whether or not it was reasonably good practice among practitioners of average skill, in this section, to reduce and treat a fracture without the assistance of X-ray plates.

The facts showed that the plaintiff suffered, and is still suffering, from a fracture of the right arm just above the wrist, incurred while cranking an automobile. According to the plaintiff, the attending physician set the fracture and treated it for some time before he advised the taking of X-rays. Dr. Jacob S. Kelly was the only physician produced by the plaintiff. He qualified his testimony that X-ray pictures should have been taken soon after if not before the reduction of the fracture by saying that he was an X-ray man and did not claim to be an orthopedic specialist.

In addition to the defendant, Doctors Louis A. E. Goddu of Boston, Massachusetts, and Murray S. Dan-forth testified for the defense. There was some testimony that the plaintiff was averse to the taking of X-rays. The question was left to the jury upon all the evidence after full presenta[42]*42tion by able counsel. It found for the defendant. Tbe Court cannot substitute its own judgment in the face of the opinion of these two experts, especially of Dr. Danforth, in whom it places the highest confidence.

For plaintiff: Grim, Littlefield & Eden. For defendant: Hinckley, Allen, Tillinghast, Phillips & Wheeler.

Motion for new trial denied.

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

CAPOTOSTO, J.

Action for malpractice in the treatment of a broken arm. Verdict for defendant. Motion for new trial based on the usual grounds.

The controversy centered about the question as to whether or not it was reasonably good practice among practitioners of average skill, in this section, to reduce and treat a fracture without the assistance of X-ray plates.

The facts showed that the plaintiff suffered, and is still suffering, from a fracture of the right arm just above the wrist, incurred while cranking an automobile. According to the plaintiff, the attending physician set the fracture and treated it for some time before he advised the taking of X-rays. Dr. Jacob S. Kelly was the only physician produced by the plaintiff. He qualified his testimony that X-ray pictures should have been taken soon after if not before the reduction of the fracture by saying that he was an X-ray man and did not claim to be an orthopedic specialist.

In addition to the defendant, Doctors Louis A. E. Goddu of Boston, Massachusetts, and Murray S. Dan-forth testified for the defense. There was some testimony that the plaintiff was averse to the taking of X-rays. The question was left to the jury upon all the evidence after full presenta[42]*42tion by able counsel. It found for the defendant. Tbe Court cannot substitute its own judgment in the face of the opinion of these two experts, especially of Dr. Danforth, in whom it places the highest confidence.

For plaintiff: Grim, Littlefield & Eden. For defendant: Hinckley, Allen, Tillinghast, Phillips & Wheeler.

Motion for new trial denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 R.I. Dec. 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paine-v-flynn-risuperct-1932.