23 Cal. 2d 330 - Trindle v. Wheeler’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently January 2008 · most notably 6 Cal. 3d 176 - Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand (1971), 38 Cal. 3d 18 - Mann v. Cracchiolo (1985)
38 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Estate of Lances · 11 Cal. 2d 64 - Engstrom v. Auburn Automobile Sales Corp. · 13 Cal. 2d 216 - Engelking v. Carlson · Wemett v. Mount
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““General Rule. The law requires that a physician shall have that degree of skill and learning ordinarily possessed by physicians of good standing practicing in the same locality, and that he shall use the same care and diligence in applying that learning to the treatment of a patient. It is likewise the general rule that whether he has done so in a particular ease is a question for experts and can be established only by their testimony. [Citing a case.] “General Exception. To the above general rule there is this well-recognized exception, to wit, where the question of the propriety of the treatment is a matter of common knowledge of laymen, expert testimony is unnecessary in order to establish liability in a malpractice case. “Specific Exception. The use of the X-ray as an aid to diagnosis in cases of fracture or other indicated cases is a matter of common knowledge, and the failure to make use thereof in such a case amounts to a failure to use that degree of care and diligence ordinarily used by physicians of good standing practicing in this community. The court in the absence of expert testimony may take judicial notice of this fact. [Citing cases.] “It is evident in the present case that when plaintiff fell a possible fracture was indicated, and under the foregoing rules it is likewise apparent that it was a matter of common knowledge, of which the trial court should have taken judicial notice that the ordinary physician of good standing in this community, in the exercise ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“in a particular case is generally a question for experts and can be established only by their testimony”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.