Davis v. . Wilmerding

Stacy, C. J. The case is here on demurrer to the evidence. The appeal presents no other question. The applicable principles of law are well settled: First. On motion to nonsuit, the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of every fact and inference of fact pertaining to the issues involved which may reasonably be deduced from the evidence. Diamond v. Service Stores, 211 N. C., 632, 191 S. E., 355. Second. The law holds a physician or surgeon liable for an .injury to his patient proximately resulting from a want of that degree of knowledge and skill ordinarily possessed by others of his profession, or for the omission to use reasonable care and diligence in the practice of his art, or for the failure to exercise his best judgment in the treatment of the case. Nash v. Royster, 189 N. C., 408, 127 S. E., 356. Third. A departure from approved methods in general use, if injurious to the patient, suffices to carry the case to the jury on the issue of negligence. Covington v. James, 214 N. C., 71, 197 S. E., 701. *641 Yiewing tbe evidence witb tbat degree of liberality required on motion to nonsuit, tbe conclusion is reached tbat tbe permissible inferences are sucb as to make tbe issue of liability one for tbe twelve. ■ It appears tbat tbe removal of tbe east once or twice a week and tbe massaging of plaintiff’s band and arm without any support under tbe broken part was unusual and a departure from approved methods in general use. Tbe jury was warranted in concluding tbat this was injurious to tbe plaintiff. It results, therefore, tbat tbe verdict and judgment must be upheld. No error.