The concession of the ship's doctor that he would have heeded such a recommendation is not of itself evidence of negligence.

The doctor apparently made a wrong diagnosis, but that does not prove that it was a negligent one.

The Secord case gives only a charge to a jury in a case where the issue was liability of a railroad to a passenger for negligent treatment by a physician in its employ.

In that case the employer of both the doctor and the injured person engaged the doctor who negligently rendered the treatment which aggravated the injury.

caused by the negligence of a physician or a surgeon in treating it.

The plaintiff then sued the physicians to recover damages for their negligent and unskillful treatment of the injury.

Plaintiff admits that the doctor was negligent, and brought this action seeking contribution on the theory that the nurse or nurses were also negligent and that defendant was jointly liable with the doctor as their employer.

The problem, then, is simply one of master and servant—whether the nurses at the time of the alleged negligence were the employes of the doctor or of the hospital.

W. 305 , were malpractice cases in which only the personal negligence of the physician in charge was in issue. They are not controlling here.

Paragraph five alleges other standards of good practice of dentists in Kern County; that Doctor Samuel Smith was negligent in failing to follow them; and that Wanda Kraft was damaged by such alleged negligence of Doctor Samuel Smith

Paragraph three alleges certain standards of good practice of physicians and surgeons in Los Angeles County; that Doctor- Innis was negligent in failing to conform to those standards in the treatment of Wanda Kraft.

It seems to be true that each of the three doctors is accused of a separate tort and that there is no allegation of concurrent negligence, at least between the two Doctors Smith and Doctor Innis.

of the doctor.

of his injuries caused by the negligence of the doctor.

At common law the employee had a right of action against the doctor for malpractice where negligence of the physician aggravated the original injury.

a physician, that there be testimony by a physician or surgeon that the attending physician or surgeon was negligent or administered improper treatment; that if such expert testimony be essential, it was present in the instant case

The crucial question in this case is whether the defendants, as attending and treating physicians, ‘were negligent in the treatment administered, and, if negligent at all, whether such negligence had any causal relation to the death

, as to negligence or otherwise, it was contended by the appellant that the physicians were negligent in “leaving a large piece of metal in a soiled, contused wound for four mouths and then removing it, and in failing to remove soiled

It has been settled by decisions in tort actions that the aggravation of injuries by the negligence of a doctor is within the scope of the risk created by the original tortious act. (Ash v.

or carelessness of the employer’s selected physician.’

or carelessness of the employer’s selected physician.”

Was the diagnosis as to the location of the bullet negligent?

As to Doctor Friedlaender’s negligence, the jury could infer that he relied on his manual examination, in which he incorrectly thought that he felt the bullet on the right side, and that he paid little heed to the X-ray.

Thus the negligence of both Doctor Friedlaender and Doctor Minor resulted in an inaccurate diagnosis of the course taken by the bullet. See Rodgers v. Canfield, 272 Mich. 562, 564 .

In the course of medical treatment for the injury, plaintiff sustained X-ray burns through the negligence of the attending physicians, and the ultimate result was amputation of the finger.

or carelessness of the employer’s selected physician.”

Here plaintiff urges that the insurance carrier failed to bring an independent action to recover from the negligent doctors its "expenditures for compensation” by reason of the malpractice but simply filed notice of its claim of lien

It was iterated that the electrical current was "negligently applied . . . under the negligent and careless personal supervision and direction of the said [physician] . . .," and that the treatment lasted continuously for twenty minutes

The physician failed to make the standard check and the patient lost his vision and charged the physician with negligent treatment.

And it has been justly held that where a physician negligently left, a sponge in the abdomen after an operation though the evidence showed that other capable physicians sometimes did the same thing, that the trial court properly submitted

In malpractice cases, whether a physician or surgeon is negligent in the treatment of a patient depends upon whether he has used or failed to use the ordinary care 2 and skill required of doctors in the community which he serves.

App. 594 , 144 S.W.2d 850 , it was held that it was negligence for physicians to fail to apprise themselves of symptoms which are present and to diagnose and correctly treat the patient on the basis of those symptoms.

Medicine not being an exact science, it is not necessary that the proximate cause of an injury sustained through the negligence of a doctor be proved with exactitude.

The appellee contends that an employer is not liable for the erroneous diagnosis or negligent treatment of an employee’s ailment by one of its physicians, where the employer was not negligent in selecting the physician and had no knowledge

Such a rule is not absolute in Mississippi, although in some circumstances the master is not liable for the negligence or unskillfulness of a physician employed by him, provided he has exercised due care in selecting the physician.

He obeyed this order, and was injured by the aforesaid negligence of the physician in charge, who represented the appellee and was neither selected nor employed by the appellant.

The law requires that a physician shall have the degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by physicians of good standing practicing in the same community and negligence of a doctor consists of his failure to conform to the

W. 821, 823 , an action against a physician to recover damages sustained in the giving of an X-ray treatment, the court said: “It is, however, one thing to say that an adverse result is not, in itself, evidence of negligence or want

Watson, supra, as authority for our holding that expert testimony is essential to support an action for negligence against a physician.

The defense in the case was that death was caused not by the wound, but because of the negligence of the doctors, or of the deceased, or others, in looking after the wouná.

Nanney, of Austin, the expert opinion that it was not gross negligence on the part of the first doctor to fail to recommend a surgical operation at once.

Such being true it, of necessity, follows that there was no negligence — much less gross negligence — on the part of the doctors.

The general rule is that if an injured person uses ordinary care in selecting a physician for treatment of his injury, the law regards the aggravation of the injury result *225 ing from the negligent act of the physician as a part

This rule is based on the theory that the aggravation of the injury by the negligent treatment of the physician is a result that might reasonably have been anticipated.

Fitzporter called in another physician and they treated the plaintiff. Later the plaintiff executed a paper releasing Dr. Fitzporter from all liability flowing from the negligent operation of the automobile.

It was held by the court in Ewing v Goode, C.C., 78 P. 442 , 443, that a physician is not a warrantor of cures, and, if a failure to cure were held to be evidence, however slight, of negligence on the part of the physician or surgeon

E. (2d) 242 , the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was held to apply in patient’s action against physicians for injuries allegedly sustained through negligence of such physicians in leaving a gauze sponge in patient’s body after an operation

Unexplained, the leaving of a four-inch rubber tube in a patient’s body by a physician is negligence, and it occurs to us that it would be very difficult for a physician to explain how he could leave a rubber tube in a patient’s body

Plaintiff alleged, as he had in substance in said preceding petitions, that said doctors were negligent in leaving said pieces of gauze or sponge in the body of his said wife when the incision was closed; in not removing them before

Appellant alleged various items of damages which he claimed to have sustained as the result of the negligence of said doctors as aforesaid, and sought recovery therefor. Each of the three defendants filed separate answers.

If the respective doctor^ knew at the time and continuously after!

Due to the lack of facilities for roentgenological diagnosis, *242 the incompetency of physicians provided to make such a type of examination, and the negligence of the physician making such examination, the injury to the plaintiff

The facts set forth in the claim sufficiently raise the question of the State’s negligence in failing to provide proper facilities and competent physicians for the treatment of the claimant and the negligence and malpractice of the

physician furnished by the State for the care and treatment of the claimant.

There is evidence from which a jury could find causal negligence on the part of the defendant physician that resulted in unnecessary physical and mental suffering.

This was the first child for this couple and the jury could find that they were not necessarily negligent in failing to recognize the true facts and to give the doctor a more accurate description of the situation.

The plaintiff is entitled to recover however for any and all pains of childbirth and of the following bodily condition that were not prevented or eased because of the negligent failure of the physician to attend or to prescribe.

of the physician and that such negligence has some causal connection with the claimed injury.

The physician in that case was charged with negligence in removing a uterus, it being claimed that he negligently cut the bladder during the operation, making a large hole causing leakage.

The nearest that any physician came to testifying as to an act of negligence was a suggestion on the part of one of the medical experts called by the appellant who testified that the operating surgeon might have peeled too close to