Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

65 Me. 223

Goodwin v. Hersom

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided August 6, 1875

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1875-08-06

<p> Evidence. Pleading. Variance. </p> <p>In an action on the case against a surgeon for negligence in which injuries were alleged to have ensued from his want of ordinary care and skill in the treatment of a fracture, held, that proof that he gave assurances to the plaintiff that he possessed and would exercise extraordinary skill, and effect a cure, was not admissible to support the declaration, since the plaintiff must recover, if at all, in accordance with his allegations.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1897

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1875-08-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Barrows, J.

¶1The plaintiff must recover, if at all, in accordance as well with his allegations as with his proof.

¶2He does not allege in his writ that the defendant made any pretensions to extraordinary skill as a surgeon, or undertook to warrant a prompt or perfect cure, or that he was induced to employ the defendant by means of any such pretensions or promises.

¶3The only issue presented and joined in these pleadings by the parties, was, whether the defendant was guilty of a want of the ordinary skill and care which every professional man impliedly undertakes to bestow upon a case committed to his charge.

¶4In view of the testimony introduced by the plaintiff and recited in the exceptions, the instruction was appropriate, in order to *225direct the attention of the jury to the issue upon which they were to pass; and it affords the plaintiff no just cause of complaint.

¶5 Exceptions overruled.

Ai^pleton, C. J., Walton, Daneorth, Yirgin and Peters, JJ"., concurred.
/65/me/223 · .json · Public domain