Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-12-20


scripts in York, Lincoln and CumbeI
land county cases as follows:
York County.
Helen coughlin, pro ami vs. Edwar
J. bradbury; John P. Coughlin VI
same. Per Curiam.
These are actions against the de
PENDANT for alleged negligence in com
pounding a physicians prescription
calling fer FIVE grains of phenacetil
and FIVE grains of sugar of milk, to b.
put ap in the form of FIVE powders
containing one grain each of tn
phenaeetln and sugar of milk. yer
diet was rendered in each case in ia
vor of the plaintiff. Except upon thu
question of damages the two cases
stand upon precisely the same testi'
moiy. In fact the second case is
matter of expenses only, depending
mon the result of the first.
The defendant, who filled the pre-.
scriution was not registered drug
gist. but this fact is immaterial. III
negligent, whether registered or not
he would be liable, and vice versa
nroyiGed there was no conuibutofS
negligence on the part of those ADMIN
istering the drug. The facts are these;
About a year before the use of The
drug upon which the case arose, the
plaintiff, John Cough1in, procured a
PRESCRIPTION from DIR. Cochrane, for
the compound above described. 1t had
been refilled three or four times, and
administered two or three times before
To the little girl, Helen. four years old.
When one of these last obtained pow
-
quite seriously i'll, from the effects OF
which she suffered some weeks. sfhe
first action is brought to recover Tor
This sllndSs, alleged to have been
caused by the defendants negligence
Was the defendant negligent There
is only one ground upon which the
DESCENDANT can be charged with negif-
gence, and that is, q failure to pro-
nerly mix the ingredients Of which the
compound was made so as TO distrib-
nte the phenaeetin throughout the
mixture so that substantially one grain
YVES contained in each powder.
II is not in controversy that the de-
PENDANT pursued the usual course IN
filling this kind of a prescription. He
weighed out five grains of each of the
required ingredients. placed them IN
q mortar. stirred them with pestle,
.sfrom minute and half to two
minutes" dumped the mixture upon
prepared paper, graded it up as near
as possible, divided it into five equal
nsrts. and then placed them into sepa-
rate papers and folded them for use,
properly marking the box in which
they were contained. The evidence
shows that this was the appropriate
and usual method of filling this kind
of prescription.
Unfortunately, only. one of these
powders was analysed. and the infer
enee to be drawn from this ANALYSIS IS
rather, against the superstition of due
care. 8 The powder analysed should
have contained one grain Of phenaces
tin. whereas I. did .: certain but six
tenths of grain, or one-tenthi more
than half. The surplus, consequently.
must have gone into one or have been
distributed in. all the other, powders.
The other powders may also have been
so -Hnevenly mixed, as to, have enabled
some one powder TO have Contained q
very much larger proportion of the
medicinal elements than was Intended,
and therefore have become an overdose
for a child but. -four. years of age
1t was incumbent upon the defendant
either to so thoroughly mix the ifgre-
dients that each powder would con-
tain substantially the quantity it was
intended to have, or to compound each
powder separately by weight, which
was perfectly practicable to do.
But the defendant contends that the
plaintiffs mother who administered
the powder, was negligent in giving a
child so young so powerful drug,
without first consulting physician to
discover IL her physical condition, be-
side the malady for which the medi-
cine was given, was in other respects
he3lthy. 1t appears, however that a
powder, compounded from this same
prescription, and presumed to be pre-
cisely like it had previously been given
to this little girl 2 or times with
perfect success. If this powder, when
properly compounded, had several
times been used with benefit, then the
mother, I'VE think, had a right to pre-
sumo that d use of 1t again for SINH
lal. trouble, and it was similar, would
effect a like result. She could not
therefore be charged with negligence,
even if her course was not in harmony
with the highest degree of prudence.
She was required to exercise only that
caution which an ordinarily careful
person would have done under like cir
cumstances. We think her act comes
within the rule.
Motion in each case overruled.