Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 Cal. 190

Moor v. Teed

California Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1853

California Supreme Court · decided 1853-07-15

This was an action brought against the defendants, physicians and surgeons, to recover damages for mal-practice, by reason of which the plaintiff alleged the amputation of his arm became necessary. The only point considered by this court, is fully set forth in the opinion of the court.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1894

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1853-07-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Wells, Justice,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court. Heydenfeldt, Justice, concurred.

¶2This action is brought against the defendants as surgeons, for alleged mal-practice in the treatment of a wounded arm of the plaintiff, by which amputation became necessary.

¶3Among the instructions given to the jury, at the request of the plaintiff, and to which the defendants excepted, was the following :—

“ That if the jury believe, from the evidence, that the defendants were guilty of negligence, carelessness, or inattention, in their treatment of the plaintiff’s wounds, by which the plaintiff was caused great bodily pain and suffering, the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict.”

¶4In giving this instruction, the court below erred. The defendants are not sued for causing bodily pain and suffering by their negligence or carelessness. They are sued for alleged mal-practice, by which amputation became necessary.

¶5The injury complained of, is the loss of the arm. If the *191amputation was not rendered necessary by any mal-practice of the defendants, they were, under the pleadings of the case, entitled to a verdict.

¶6The judgment must be reversed, and the case remanded.

¶7Ordered accordingly.

/3/cal/190 · .json · Public domain