French v. Fischer

8 Citing cases

  1. Grant v. Touro Infirmary

    254 La. 204 (La. 1969)   Cited 49 times
    Counting of surgical sponges by a surgical nurse was not a professional service

    It has also been held in other jurisdictions that a sponge count is a mere administrative act. See Buzan v. Mercy Hospital, Inc., (Fla.App.) 203 So.2d 11; Rural Educational Asso. v. Bush, 42 Tenn. App. 34, 298 S.W.2d 761; and French v. Fischer, 50 Tenn. App. 587, 362 S.W.2d 926. In essence, we approve the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Danks v. Maher and in this case and hold that an error made by the nurses in the operating room in the counting of the sponges was an act which was not excluded from coverage by the clause relied on by Hardware in the endorsement attached to its policy of insurance.

  2. Texas Tunneling Co. v. City of Chattanooga

    329 F.2d 402 (6th Cir. 1964)   Cited 12 times

    In Howell, the Tennessee Court employed dictum indicating that, given the proper circumstances, there could be an action for negligent misrepresentation without privity between a plaintiff and an alleged tort feasor. It concluded, however, that on the facts before it, that "we think the rule of liability cannot be extended to a case like [this]" ( 362 S.W.2d 926). This is essentially our view of the case before us. For us to impose liability on the defendant would require this Court to fashion a rule not yet adopted in Tennessee. Under the facts of this case, we decline to do so. Because its facts are in part responsible for our disinclination to choose this case as a vehicle in which to make a new advance in the law of torts, we indulge in some further recitation of such facts.

  3. Watkins v. United States

    482 F. Supp. 1006 (M.D. Tenn. 1980)   Cited 11 times

    Redwood v. Raskind, 49 Tenn. App. 69, 350 S.W.2d 414, 417 (1961). Physicians are not insurors of a patient but are only liable for negligence. French v. Fischer, 50 Tenn. App. 587, 362 S.W.2d 926, 929 (1962). The duty of a physician is to use his best judgment in the treatment of a patient.

  4. Foster v. Amcon Intern., Inc.

    621 S.W.2d 142 (Tenn. 1981)   Cited 88 times
    Holding that suggested additur of thirty times the jury's verdict totally destroyed the verdict

    Smith v. Shelton, 569 S.W.2d 421 (Tenn. 1978); Transport, Inc. v. Perry, 220 Tenn. 57, 414 S.W.2d 1 (1967); Shuey v. Frierson, 197 Tenn. 235, 270 S.W.2d 883 (1954); Reeves v. Catignani, 157 Tenn. 173, 7 S.W.2d 38 (1928); Ferrill v. Southern Ry. Co., 493 S.W.2d 90 (Tenn. App. 1972); Holt v. McCann, 58 Tenn. App. 248, 429 S.W.2d 441 (1968); Clinchfield R. Co. v. Forbes, 57 Tenn. App. 174, 417 S.W.2d 210 (1966); Lyons v. Wagers, 55 Tenn. App. 667, 404 S.W.2d 270 (1966); French v. Fischer, 50 Tenn. App. 587, 362 S.W.2d 926 (1962); Yellow Cab Co. of Nashville v. Pewitt, 44 Tenn. App. 572, 316 S.W.2d 17 (1958). So, under our system of jury trials, the parties have the benefit, in the first instance, of the deliberations of the jury upon the facts, guided as to the law by the instruction of a trial judge learned in the law; next, on a motion for a new trial, or mero motu, the benefit of the deliberations of the circuit judge himself, upon the whole case, in determining whether the verdict of the jury shall stand; . . . .

  5. Parker v. Vanderbilt University

    767 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that a surgeon may be vicariously liable for the acts of other medical professionals assisting in the operating room where the physician exercises direct control over the "means and method" used by the other professionals in the course of the surgical procedure

    With the concept taking on so many shades of meaning in the state of its origin, it is not surprising that other states have had difficulty in defining it. While referring to the doctrine in several cases, the Tennessee courts have not attempted to formulate a definition. See Harrison v. Wilkerson, 56 Tenn. App. 188, 405 S.W.2d 649 (1966); French v. Fischer, 50 Tenn. App. 587, 362 S.W.2d 926 (1962). In two unreported cases, the Western Section of the Court of Appeals has rejected the Captain of the Ship Doctrine after failing to find its precise meaning.

  6. Martin v. Doty

    493 S.W.2d 95 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 9 times

    See Redwood v. Raskind (1961 W.S.) 49 Tenn. App. 69, 350 S.W.2d 414. The only medical proof is contrary to plaintiff's theory of the case. Counsel for appellant argues that where a sponge is left in a plaintiff's body no medical proof of negligence is necessary as any layman would know that fact and cites as authority for that proposition French v. Fischer (1962 W.S.) 50 Tenn. App. 587, 362 S.W.2d 926; Rural Educational Association v. Bush (1956 M.S.) 42 Tenn. App. 34, 298 S.W.2d 761 and Harrison v. Wilkerson (1966 E.S.) 56 Tenn. App. 188, 405 S.W.2d 649. The difference in those cases and the instant case is that they involve surgical sponges which were left within the peritoneal or abdominal cavity. In the instant case, the sponge in question is not a surgical sponge but is actually a medicated sponge pack similar in nature and purpose to a Tampax.

  7. Perkins v. Parkview Hospital, Inc.

    61 Tenn. App. 458 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 9 times

    There is nothing in the facts of the case upon which a layman would be justified in finding negligence, and there is no expert testimony of negligence. Neither surgeon nor hospital is an insurer of the patient, but each is liable only for negligence. French v. Fischer, 50 Tenn. App. 587, 362 S.W.2d 926 (1962). The duty of a hospital is to exercise that degree of care, skill and diligence used by hospitals generally in the community and required by the express or implied contract.

  8. Harrison v. Wilkerson

    56 Tenn. App. 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 15 times
    In Harrison v. Wilkerson (1966), 56 Tenn. App. 188, 405 S.W.2d 649, the operating surgeon left a sponge inside the patient during a Cesarean delivery when the two nurses assisting during the surgery miscounted the sponges.

    It is also insisted the jury was guilty of misconduct in discussing whether defendant was protected by insurance and that the verdicts are excessive. Defendant concedes that under the "Captain of the Ship" doctrine, Meadows v. Patterson, 21 Tenn. App. 283, 109 S.W.2d 417; Rural Educational Ass'n v. Bush, 42 Tenn. App. 34, 298 S.W.2d 761; French v. Fischer, 50 Tenn. App. 587, 362 S.W.2d 926, a surgeon in normal circumstances is held accountable under respondeat superior for the negligence of assistants and nurses assisting in a surgical operation. He admits that in this case the sponge was not removed due to a mistake of the nurses in counting sponges. He insists, however, that exceptional circumstances may make the rule inapplicable and that in this case the necessity of attending to the emergency needs of the baby in an attempt to save its life might have been held by the jury to excuse him from liability.