Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

62 Fla. 249

Palmer v. Jackson

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided June 15, 1911

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1911-06-15

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Dade County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“exclude the existence of an express or implied verbal contract relation between the parties which is usual in such cases,”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 97 So. 2d 688 - Manning v. Serrano

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1911-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1957

2 state decisions

1019111920193019401950decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

■Whitfield, C. J.

¶1— On February 11th, 1910, W. R. Palmer commenced an action against James M. Jackson, Jr., a physician, to recover damages for injuries caused by the defendant’s Careless, negligent and unskillful medical treatment of the plaintiff whom he had undertaken to treat on June 25th, 1906.

¶2The defendant pleaded not guilty and also that the cause of action did not accrue within three years before the action was commenced. A demurrer to the latter plea was overruled, and the plaintiff not desiring to amend his declaration, final judgment for the defendant was entered. Plaintiff took a writ of error which was duly recorded thereby giving this court jurisdiction of the defendant in error who is not represented by counsel here.

¶3The declaration alleges that the defendant did “undertake the treatment of” the plaintiff; and that “It was the duty of the defendant as physician to properly and skillfully treat the plaintiff;” but the defendant did so carelessly, negligently and unskillfully treat the plaintiff that *251he was thereby injured. These allegations are applicable to a tort growing out of a contract and they do not exclude the existence of an express or implied verbal contract relation between the parties which is usual in such cases.

¶4Thus considered the action was upon a “obligation or liability not founded upon an instrument of writing,” and was barred in three years. Sec. 1725, subdivision 5 Gen. Stats.

¶5The judgment is affirmed.

Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur.Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
/62/fla/249 · .json · Public domain