[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
April 6, 1935


JAMA. 1935;104(14):1274. doi:10.1001/jama.1935.02760140078046

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


Malpractice: Res Ipsa Loquitur; Admissibility of Evidence as to Indemnity Insurance.—  The defendant-physician operated on the plaintiff, removing a fibroid tumor and a diseased appendix. The operation was successful and the patient obtained the desired relief. At some time subsequent to the recovery of consciousness, however, a large blister was found on the chest of the plaintiff, for which injury she sued the defendant. The trial court gave judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Montana.The defendant contended, among other things, that the complaint contained only general allegations of negligence, whereas it should have set forth the specific acts or omissions on which recovery was sought. The plaintiff, said the court, sought to avail herself of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and in a case in which that doctrine is applicable, general allegations of negligence are sufficient. The doctrine of res ipsa

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview