River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1914-04-16
POPULAR TALKS ON LAW
THE DOCTORS RESPONSIBILITIES
BY Walter K. Towers, A. B., J. D., of the
Michigan Bar.


between practitioner and patient
and it seems worth while to report
the case substantially in the words
of the court itself. This was con-
test, says the court, between two
members of the gentler sex. Plain
tiff was a practitioner of the art or
science of osteopathy, and the de-
fendant either needed, or thought
she did (Which is the same thlng),
the services of the plaintiff Several
visits were made, at So. 10 per visit;
the ten cents b eng added for street
car fare, and the whole bill amount
ed to $27 go Defendant claims
that charges were made for several
social calls, and that the services
rendered her by the docror gave
her no relief and were SO unsatis
factory that she was forced to re
sort to a physician of the allopathic
school, who administered pills and
mixtures in the good, oldfashioned
way. On the issues of fact the
plaintiff out-swore the defendant,
or at least the jury in the Justices
court thought she did, and the
Judge of the superior court refused
to interfere. II would never do 10
hold that a doctor is entitled to re-
cover only where he cures the pa
tient. y So far as we are
concerned the doctors may continue
to bury their mistakes and recover
for their services as they have al
ways done. If we were dealing with
lawyers the case might be different,
but sufficient unto the day is the
evil thereof. 1t appears
from the record that the trial waxed
warm, and during the testimony OF
the defendant the plaintiff became
excited and exclaimed, Liar! liar!
Iiar!" and while the defendants
counsel was endeavoring to per-
suade the jury to accept his clients
theory of the case the plaintiff did
at intervals yell out in court that
the defendant was a liar and had
lied" 1t is claimed that this con-
duct of plaintiff prejudiced the jury
against the defendant, and that the
verdict ought to be set aside because
the magistrate failed to punish the
plaintiff for contempt. The court
answers: Doubtless the conduct
of the plaintiff overawed the chival-
rous young justice and embarrassed
him quite as much as it did the de-
PENDANT, and we are not disposed
to criticise too harShly his exhibi-
tion of judicial timidity. At any
rate the contumelious plaintiff must
be allowed 10 rest upon his judicial
conscience If we had any means
of knowing that the plaintiff con-
duct terrorized the jury and coerced
the verdict in her favor, we would,
in the interest of fair and Impair
tial trial, direct another hearing
But the Jury doubtless felt secure
under the protection of the bailiff
and the sacred precincts of the
court room, and if they had return
ed a verdict adverse to the plaintiff,
there was, no doubt, some rear door
through which they might have dis
persed, and thus have escaped vic
lence at the hands of litigant out
ragged at the injustice which had
been melted out to her. Viewing
the matter from this safe distance,
we are inclined to think that the un-
Seemly conduct of the plaintiff
would more likely have prejudiced
her own cause than it did the de-
PENDANT s." Judgment for plaintiff
is affirmed.
Thus we not that the rule is laid
down In law that physician does
not guarantee to cure patient by
simply undertaking the case, and
his compensation is not dependant
upon a cure, unless that is specifi-
cally agreed in advance.
Generally speaking the duty of
the average practitioner towards
his patient is to use the ordinary
skill and care possessed and prac-
ticed by members of the profession
in general in similar locations. No
extraordinary skill or learning is
expected of physician in law, be-
yond that possessed by the ordinari-
ly skillful practitioner. The physi-
clan is supposed to keep abreast of