Court Opinion

ID: 9779309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:45:22.976011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:25.097500
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellant points out in her motion for rehearing that this court failed to discuss her contention that the answer made by the jury to Special Issue No. 6, by which the jury failed to find that the negligence of Dr. Joseph Goulding in failing to advise Mrs. Rita Traylor of the possibility that the chicken bone could be in the minor child’s lung was a proximate cause of damage to the minor plaintiff, was contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. An affirmative answer to Special Issue No. 6 is not established as a matter of law. The evidence establishes that Mrs. Traylor told Dr. Goulding about the chicken bone on the two occasions he examined the child, and also told Dr. Smith about the incident when he subsequently examined the child. Both doctors were aware of the possibility that the bone could be in the child’s lung. Whether Mrs. Traylor was aware of the possibility or not, she was diligent in seeking treatment for the child. She relied on the doctors to properly treat the child. It is not established that she would have followed a different course of action had she been informed of the possibility. Since the doctors were aware of the possibility, the treatment prescribed by them would not have been affected had Mrs. Traylor been more fully informed.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.