Home/Supreme Court of Kansas/Parr v. Young

Parr v. Young

246 P. 181, 121 Kan. 47, 1926 Kan. LEXIS 15
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedMay 8, 1926
DocketNo. 26,613
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 246 P. 181 (Parr v. Young) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Parr v. Young, 246 P. 181, 121 Kan. 47, 1926 Kan. LEXIS 15 (kan 1926).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The action was one for damages for malpractice. Plaintiff recovered, and defendant appeals.

On February 12, 1923, plaintiff was injured while cranking the engine of his truck. The wrist joint was dislocated by throwing the ulna upward and forward through the skin toward the palm of the hand, and the radius was broken. The injury was treated by defendant. About the middle of March the splint and bandages were removed. The swelling had not left the arm, the end of the ulna was not in place, and the radius was crooked. Plaintiff told defendant his arm was not straight, but defendant said he should go ahead and use it and it would probably come out all right. The arm had been set with the palm of the hand up, plaintiff could not rotate his forearm, it ached and throbbed all the time, and in the latter part of April defendant said it would be necessary to break the arm again in order to straighten it. On May 1 plaintiff went to the hospital, was given an anaesthetic, and defendant broke his arm. About three weeks later the splint and bandages were removed. The arm was swollen, the end of the ulna could be seen sticking up, and the arm was so sore plaintiff could do nothing with it. Defendant said it was coming all right, and plaintiff should go [48]*48ahead and use it. A few days later plaintiff called defendant’s attention to the fact that his arm was crooked, and defendant said, go ahead and use it, it would come out all right, it would get stronger and come out all right. Plaintiff worked his fingers and tried to use his arm and fingers, but on June 11 he complained to defendant that his wrist was out of joint and his arm was crooked. Defendant said to let it go for five or six months, and he would break it again. After defendant had broken the arm in order to straighten it, it was worse than before, and plaintiff did not take defendant’s latest advice. Plaintiff consulted another surgeon, and an X-ray examination revealed the condition shown by the accompanying cut (page 49).

The jury returned the following special findings of fact:

“1. Did the defendant exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the exercise of his duties as surgeon and physician in the care and treatment which he rendered to the plaintiff. A. No.
“2. If you answer the foregoing question in the negative, specify the particulars wherein the defendant failed to exercise such care and diligence. A. According to the evidence as well as the result obtained, the plaintiff did not receive the care and attention due him.”

Defendant moved the court to require the jury to return a more specific answer to the second question. The jury retired for that purpose, under a proper instruction, and in due time returned the following addition to the first answer:

“Also due to improper adjustment of splint and general indifference shown by the defendant in postponing indefinitely after the last adjustment when his attention was called to the abnormal condition of the plaintiff’s arm.”

Defendant moved to strike out the answer to the second question, on the ground it did not comply with the requirement of the question. The motion was denied, and defendant assigns as error the ruling on the motion. The completed,'answer fully met the requirement of the question. Plaintiff has been deprived in large degree of the use of an arm through improper splinting, a particular wherein defendant-failed to exercise ordinary care and diligence, pleaded in the petition and proved by expert surgical testimony at the trial.

When the jury came in the first time, defendant requested that, if the jury found any act of negligence, it be required to state when the act occurred, whether before or after the bones were reset. The requested additional finding was not stated in writing as the code requires (R. S. 60-2918). It was entirely within the discretion of

[49]

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

Related

Maunz v. Perales
76 P.3d 1027 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2003)
McMillen v. Foncannon
274 P. 237 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
246 P. 181, 121 Kan. 47, 1926 Kan. LEXIS 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parr-v-young-kan-1926.