Sherman v. Pittwood
M. A. Sherman v. E. Pittwood
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Morris, J.
Appellant is a dentist, and while he was doing some work upon respondent’s teeth, a small emery disc that he was using in shaping and grinding the teeth broke, and cut into and injured respondent’s tongue. Answering respondent’s claim of negligence in not taking proper precautions to prevent the injury complained of, appellant contended that he was using due care; that the disc was of standard make, and was being used in the manner employed by skilled dentists when respondent suddenly jerked his head, and his tongue coming in contact with the disc, broke it, and thus caused the injury complained of.
*516 These contentions presented a simple question of fact to the court, who tried the case without a jury, and we can find no reason why the findings should be disturbed. There can be no question but that respondent’s evidence, if accepted by the court, was sufficient to sustain the findings, and they will be sustained, as we cannot say there was such a preponderance in appellant’s favor as to entitle him to a dismissal.
The judgment is affirmed.
Mount, C. J., Fullerton, Ellis, and Main, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.