Case Name: ROBINSON v. BUNTS
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-06-18
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 518
Docket Number: No. 4439
Parties: ROBINSON v. BUNTS
Judges: Middleton, Mauck and Sayre, JJ., Fourth Dis., sitting
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 518–518

Head Matter:
No. 533
ROBINSON v. BUNTS
Ohio Appeals, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County
No. 4439.
Decided June 18, 1923
This opinion has not been published except in Abst'jfl^
NEGLIGENCE — When error to direct verdict, ior negligent operation.
Middleton, Mauck and Sayre, JJ., Fourth Dis., sitting
Attorneys — Boyd, Cannon Brooks and Wickham, and Dustin, McKeehan, Merrick, Arter and Stewart, for Bunts; Waterworth and Waterworth, for Robinson.

Opinion:
MAUCK, J.:
Epitomized Opinion
Plaintiff sued defendant, a surgeon, for leaving gauze in a wound when he operated upon her. The Common Pleas Court directed a verdi it for defendant. The defendant and his assistants treated her for six months after the operation. Thereafter, gauze was found in the wound by another physician. Plaintiff contended that defendant was negligent (1) in failing to remove the gauze at the time of the operation and (2) in failing to remove it at any time after the operation. In reversing the judgment of the lower court the Court of Appeals held:
_ 1. It was error for the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendant when the evidence disclosed that gauze was found in the'wound after the operation and treatment by defendant and assistants, even though the evidence does not show at what time t¿e gauze was left in the wound. There was a sci: of evidence to go to the jury.