BURNT .BY HOTWATER BOTTLE

Evening Star, Issue 22453, 25 September 1936, Page 10

BURNT .BY HOTWATER BOTTLE

PATIENT’S ACTION FOR DAMAGES BOARD ADMITS NEGLIGENCE [Per United Press Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, September 25. Alleging that she had suffered a burn to her left thigh which resulted in pain, shock, and permanent disablement of the limb, Mrs Caroline Thomas, of Christchurch, claimed £3OO as general damages from the North Canterbury Hospital Board in the Magistrate’s Court to-day, alleging that her injury was sustained through the negligence of the board and its servants while she was undergoing treatment in the Christchurch Public Hospital. Decision was reserved. Mr Haslam, appearing for plaintiff, said that the board admitted negligence, and, he understood, had paid £IOO into court with a denial of liability, declaring that £IOO was sufficient compensation. Mrs Thomas, he continued, was admitted to the hospital to undergo an internal operation. Ordinarily, she should have been in the hospital for a fortnight qnly, as the operation was a comparatively simple matter. The operation was successfully performed on February 13, 1935, but, on coining out of the anesthetic, Mrs Thomas felt a severe pain in her left thigh, and shortly afterwards lost consciousness. . A nurse admitted to her that she (the nurse) must have burnt her with a hotwatev bottle during the operation. As a result of this burn, Mrs Thomas was an additional live weeks in the hospital. When she was discharged the wound had not healed. After she had been home for three iveeks the wound healed, but ever since Mrs Thomas had suffered pain. Opening the case for the defence, Mr Wanklyn said that, while it was not doubted that Mrs Thomas had suffered pain and inconvenience, the bqard had treated her generously. It had abandoned its claim for expenses against her, and, with the money paid into court, this amounted to £ll6. “If the board had paid in £SO it would have been ample recompense for her injury in the past and disability in the future,” went on Mr Wanklyn, “ but the board is not an insurance company, which, it is reputed, fights a claim to the last penny, and the board has shown great generosity in this case.”