The Dickinson press. (Dickinson, Stark County, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1883-1927, 1913-01-04

Jury Out
Considerably more than usual inter-
est centered in district court this week
when the case of Albert Donker W. r.
Colwill was in progress. This was
civil action to recover SIS. 600 damage
from Dr. Colwill of Bel6eld for alleged
malpractice.
Nav 18th. 1911. Donker. young Hol-
lander. who had been for a time with
the Holland Dakota Landbouw Co. at
Belheld as foreman but at the
time of the accident employed
on a ranch, had 4 his leg broken
below the knee by a wagon being
tipped over upon it by a frightened
team. Dr.. Colwill reduced the fracture.
Three months passed and the bone
did not knit and the patient complain
ed that the bones were loose and graf
ing and that the pain was intense.
August 18th. 1911. according, to Dr.. Col
Wills memorandum. he performed an
operation, opening the leg and laying
bare the fracture. The bones had not
united. At that time he put in silver
wire splint and rebandaeed the limb.
The leg still remaining useless,
about the first of October, 1911, Mr..
Donker came to Dickinson and entered
the Stein hospital where Drs. Davis and
Bowen operated upon the injured men,
Der. According to their testimony they
found the main bones still separate. a
small detached dead piece of bone.
pus present and an infected condition
of the tissues. The fracture was again
reduced and treated and finally in Feb.
ruary Mr.. Donker found himself able to
use his limb again, although somewhat
crippled.
The suit for damages was brought by
Mr.. Donker upon the plea that incom-
potency and gross negligence on the
part of DR.. Colwill caused him several
months of illness beyond the time US
ually required for the healing of a
broken bone, great expense. loss of
WAGES and permanent disability.
The prosecution claimed the limb
was not properly bandaeed at first
that it was out of line and was known
to be; that it was not watched care
fully; that no splinter on the front side
of the bone treated grew on to the bone
as claimed; that the dead piece from
the back of the broken bone was not
removed in the August operation and
that infection resulted that the plain
tiff had done nothing to retard cure.
The defense introduced evidence rela-
tive to Dr. Colwill's professional train
ing and competency and denied care
lessness. negligence or indifference.
The fracture was difficult one to i'm
mobilize but it was properly set and
properly bandaged. The patient had
not obeyed instructions and had injured
himself by moving when ordered to
keep quiet. He had even removed ban
dages and splints. His physical con-
dition was such as to delay the healing
Of the break.
Several interesting points of law were
brought out by the attorneys and eluci-
dated by the court in the charge to the
jury. r
Competency to practice medicine or
surgery does not mean that one must be
a specialist but that he must possess
that measure of knowledge of his pro-
fession possessed by others similarly
situated and commensurate to the size
and Importance of the place. where he
is located. The same knowledge and
skill demanded in St. Paul or Chicago
would not be expected in village like
Belheld. g .
A physician may refuse any case but
once taking a patient he is bound to
do his best whether paid or net.
No physician guarantees cure and
he is not liable for errors in judgment.
The patient after putting himself in
the care Of = physician is as much
bound to obey orders as the physician
is 70 exercise skill. knowledge and care.
So II the Donker- -Colwill case the;
jury had to decide, If Dr. colwill was
II 60. YVES he NEGLIGENT IN
this case; was the patient 90 disobe-
dent Of orders as to destroy the eject
Of the doctor . skill and care, ii 90. the
burden Of proof then shtftine to the de-
Tense. ,S ..s
Seldom has there been such an array
Of local LEGAL talent al was lined up
on this case; Attorneys !. e. Murths
and aHlnd H: Z. Berry prosecuting and At