Simonds v. Henry

39 Me. 155
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided July 1, 1855·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

AppletoN, J.

— The law impliés an undertaking on the part of apothecaries and surgeons, that they will use a reasonable degree of care and skill in the treatment of their [157]*157patients. Chitty on Contracts, 553. They are held responsible for injuries resulting from a want of ordinary care and skill. The highest degree of skill is not to be expected, nor can it reasonably bo required of all.

The instruction given was, that if the plaintiff has used all the knowledge and skill to which the art had at the time advanced, that would be all that would be required of him,” &c. It is undoubtedly correct, that no more would be required of Mm. But upon legal principles could so much be required of him ? We think not. If it could, then every professional man would be bound to possess the highest attainments, and to exercise the greatest skill in his profession. Such a requirement would be unreasonable.

The instructions given were erroneous and a new trial must be had.

Exceptions sustained.

New trial ordered.

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

Simonds v. Henry, 39 Me. 155 (Me. 1855).

39 Me. 155 (Simonds v. Henry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McTyeire v. McGaughy
130 So. 784 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1930)
Whitesell v. Hill
37 L.R.A. 830 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1897)
Allan v. State Steamship Co.
30 N.E. 482 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)
Almond v. Nugent
34 Iowa 300 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1872)