TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wright v. Clement

Walter A. Wright v. Samuel A. Clement

Wright v. Clement, 190 N.E. 11 (Mass. 1934)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 26, 1934
Judges
Lummus
Citations
190 N.E. 11287 Mass. 1751934 Mass. LEXIS 1011

Opinion of the Court — Lummus

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Lummus, J.

This is an action of tort against a physician. The first count alleges that in treating the plaintiff’s testatrix before, during and after childbirth he was guilty of “wanton and reckless acts” as well as “negligence,” which caused her death. The second count is for conscious suffering from the same wrong. No question of pleading is raised. There was not the slightest evidence of any “wanton and reckless acts,” and the only question argued relates to the negligence alleged.

There was evidence tending to show negligence in failing to discover that the plaintiff’s testatrix had scarlet fever until the disease was advanced beyond the point at which antitoxin might have been of service. There was evidence tending to show negligence in removing her from the maternity ward of a hospital to her mother’s tenement, where facilities for treatment and care were limited, rather than to a hospital for contagious diseases. She died from septicemia, the result of scarlet fever. The difficulty with the plaintiff’s case is that there is nothing to show any probability that she would have recovered or lived longer or suffered less, if due care had been used. Semerjian v. Stetson, 284 Mass. 510 . De Filippo’s Case, 284 Mass. 531 . Compare Bennett v. Fitzgerald, 284 Mass. 535 , and Marangian v. Apelian, 286 Mass. 429 . The direction of a verdict in favor of the defendant was right.

Judgment for the defendant.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1935: 11937: 11938: 11946: 11967: 11972: 11973: 12008: 119352026peak 1935 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Matsuyama v. Birnbaum452 Mass. 1 (2008)
  2. Barker v. Heaney82 S.W.2d 417 (Tex. App. 1935)
  3. Edwards v. Clark83 P.2d 1021 (Utah 1938) · Concurrence
  4. Woronka v. Sewall69 N.E.2d 581 (Mass. 1946)
  5. Murphy v. Conway277 N.E.2d 681 (Mass. 1972)
  6. Zimmerman v. Litvich7 N.E.2d 437 (Mass. 1937)

Most recent

  1. Matsuyama v. Birnbaum452 Mass. 1 (2008)
  2. Cinis v. Post304 N.E.2d 207 (Mass. App. Ct. 1973)
  3. Murphy v. Conway277 N.E.2d 681 (Mass. 1972)
  4. Aurelio v. Laird223 N.E.2d 531 (Mass. 1967)
  5. Woronka v. Sewall69 N.E.2d 581 (Mass. 1946)
  6. Edwards v. Clark83 P.2d 1021 (Utah 1938) · Concurrence

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.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
DeFilippo's Case, 188 N.E. 245 (Mass. 1933) 69
Semerjian v. Stetson, 187 N.E. 829 (Mass. 1933) 47
Marangian v. Apelian, 190 N.E. 729 (Mass. 1934) 20
Bennett v. Fitzgerald, 188 N.E. 247 (Mass. 1933) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list