Payne v. Chandler

153 S.E. 96, 41 Ga. App. 385, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 617
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 21, 1930
Docket19962
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 153 S.E. 96 (Payne v. Chandler) 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
Payne v. Chandler, 153 S.E. 96, 41 Ga. App. 385, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 617 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. The mere stimulation of a person’s senses as a result of a negligent act of another, which causes no actual physical or material damage, but only an unpleasant sensation, is injuria sine damno. Where, through the negligence of a dentist while operating in the mouth of a patient, the patient is caused to swallow a bitter and ill-tasting liquid, but sustains no ill effect therefrom other than the disagreeable [386]*386stimulation of tlie patient’s sense of taste, the patient has suffered no actionable damage.

Decided April 21, 1930. Louis II. Foster, for plaintiff. Bryan & MiddlebrooTcs, for defendant.

2. The mere fact that one event chronologically follows another is alone insufficient to establish a causal relation between them. Post hoc non propter hoe. Evidence that a woman suffered a pain in her heart and other physical ailments after having swallowed a liquid, the nature and character of which does not appear except that it was suitable for use as a hypodermic by a dentist while operating in a person’s mouth and possessed a bitter and disagreeable taste, is, in the absence of evidence as to any facts tending to show a causal relation between the woman’s physical condition and the swallowing of the liquid, insufficient to authorize an inference of fact that her condition was caused by the swallowing and the ill tasting effects of the liquid.

3. The evidence was insufficient to authorize a recovery, and the court properly granted a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Related

EHCA DUNWOODY, LLC v. Daniel
627 S.E.2d 830 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2006)
Garcia v. Borden, Inc.
853 P.2d 737 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1993)
Augusta Coach Co. v. Lee
151 S.E.2d 803 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1966)
Akins v. Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Insurance
134 S.E.2d 854 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Kilgore v. State
98 S.E.2d 72 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
153 S.E. 96, 41 Ga. App. 385, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payne-v-chandler-gactapp-1930.