Taylor v. Fishbaugh

WOOD, J.

Plaintiffs commenced this action against defendant, a physician, to recover a judgment for damages alleged to have been caused by the conduct of the defendant in improperly, negligently and carelessly prescribing for plaintiff Mrs. Taylor a remedy known as phanadorn. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of nonsuit entered upon motion of defendant at the termination of plaintiffs’ evidence.

Upon undertaking to treat Mrs. Taylor it became the duty of defendant to use reasonable care and diligence in the exercise of his skill and in the application of his learning to accomplish the purposes for which he was employed. It was incumbent upon him to apply to the case that degree of care, skill, knowledge and attention ordinarily possessed and exercised by practitioners of the medical profession under similar circumstances in the locality where the treatment was administered.

(Hesler

v.

California Hospital Co.,

178 Cal. 764 [174 Pac. 654] ;

Johnson

v.

Clarke,

98 Cal. App. 358 [276 Pac. 1052] ;

Markart

v.

Zeimer,

67 Cal. App. 363 [227 Pac. 683].) In order to justify submitting the issues to the jury it was necessary for plaintiffs to present proof of the negligence or lack of care or skill on the part of defendant. The issue as to what was or was not the proper practice was a question for experts, physicians familiar with the practice concerning Mrs. Taylor’s infirmities in the locality where she was treated. Without such testimony no valid judgment could be rendered.

(Hiraide

v.

Cochran,

109 Cal. App. 377 [293 Pac. 165];

Peppercorn

v.

Stewart,

114 Cal. App. 101 [299 Pac. 762];