This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
That is the way Richards v. Willard, which was decided July 15, 1896, struck the supreme court of Pennsylvania, and it did not hesitate to say so. The plaintiff claimed damages against the defendant for negligent surgical treatment for an injury to his leg. He alleged that he had sustained a fracture of both bones of his leg at a short distance above the ankle joint, and was treated, not for a fracture but for a sprain, and was thereby greatly injured. If there were no fracture the plaintiff had no case, for he did not contend that the treatment he received was improper treatment for a sprain. The defendant denied most positively that there was a fracture.
The singularity of the case arose upon the character of the testimony, and the conflict developed as to the great leading fact. Two surgical witnesses testifying from actual examination, declared that there
A MALPRACTICE CASE OF EXTRAORDINARY AND UNUSUAL CHARACTER. JAMA. 1896;XXVII(8):441–442. doi:10.1001/jama.1896.02430860045007
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.