Shaw v. Klein

83 So. 20, 121 Miss. 411
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1919·No. No. 20962·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellee, a physician and surgeon, performed a minor surgical operation on the appellant, who after-[412] wards instituted this action in the court below to recover of the appellee damages alleged to have been sustained by him because of the negligence of the appellee in performing- the operation. There was a verdict and judgment for the appellee.

One of the assignments of error presents for our determination the admissibility of the testimony of several surgeons that the appellee is a careful and skillful surgeon. The declaration expressly charges the appellee with the want of skill and care,” thereby putting his possession thereof directly in issue; consequently evidence thereof was admissible.

Whether this evidence would have been admissible in the absence of - such an allegation is not now before us. for consideration.

There is no merit in the other assignments of error.

Affirmed.

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

Shaw v. Klein, 83 So. 20, 121 Miss. 411 (Mich. 1919).

83 So. 20 (Shaw v. Klein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

DeLaughter v. Womack
164 So. 2d 762 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1964)
Newport v. Hyde
147 So. 2d 113 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1962)