A DOCTOR' BUNGLING.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2714, 30 November 1881, Page 2

A DOCTOR' BUNGLING.

In the case of W. Weir y. C. de L. Macarthy, claim £2O for damage and professional attendance for plaintiff’s daughter, the Resident Magistrate at Eangiora on Tuesday gave judgment. In this case at a previous sitting the Magistrates, (the Resident Magistrate being absent), gave judgment for plaintiff foi £5, and upon appeal it was decided by His Honor Mr Justice Johnston, that the whole case should be heard before a Resident Magistrate. Mr Whitef ord reviewed the evidence, which was to the effect that the girl having accidentally broken her thigh was attended by defendant, at that time a doctor practising in the district, who it was alleged did not set the limb properly or give it proper attention, and a second medical man had to reset it. The claim included £lO for damages, and £lO for Dr Ovenden’s attendance. He said the question before him was whether the father of the girl had sustained the damage as set out, whether the expenses were caused by defendant’s neglect, whether the parents had not properly followed the defendant’s instructions, and whether the bed on which the patient was placed was a proper one to assist in bringing about a cure. The cases quoted by the learned counsel for the defence, referring to railway accidents, ho would hold did not apply, as in those cases it did not appear that there was any wrongful act on the part of the company which entitled the parent to recover in respeet of damage by the injury of a child. In this case the plaintiff alleged that the child had been unskilfully treated, so that recovery was delayed, and permanent injury to the child was likely to result; he claimed for loss of time for nursing, and the extra expense he was also put to for the services of another doctor. Looking over the evidence it was plain that Dr Macarthy had been negligent He detailed the visits he had paid to his patient, and yet when informed on removing the splints and placing on a starch bandage, that the injured leg was shorter than the other, he appeared to have taken no notice of it, and Dr Ovendon was sent for. Eleven days after defendant took Dr Meikle to see the limb, and his evidence was to the effect that the treatment had not been what it ought to have been. As to the bed not being a proper one as alleged by defendant, Dr Ovendon effected a cure on the same bed, and by re-setting the bone the injured limb was brought to the same length as the other. Dr Macarthy could not] have [attended as stated without noticing that the limb was short, especially as his attention was called to the fact, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the wrongful and negligent act, as well for the medical attendance as for the extra trouble to which he was put, and the sum set down seemed a fair and reasonable one. Judgment for plaintiff for £2O, Court fees, witnesses, and professional fee. Mr Spademan said he would give notice of appeal, in case the defendant, with whom he would communicate, might elect to take the matter further. (“ Press ”).