Bennett v. Hoge

California Court of Appeal Sep 11, 1930 No. Docket No. 7210.Published

Before: Jorgensen

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the jury's findings on conflicting evidence regarding the existence of an express contract, the quality of dental services, and the reasonableness of fees are binding on appeal. The court further held that incidental costs for materials and technician services are included within the scope of 'professional services' and that jury instructions must be read as a whole.

Issues

Whether the jury's verdict regarding the existence of an express contract and the quality of dental services is binding on appeal.
Whether a motion to strike a witness's answer is waived if the moving party fails to specify the grounds for the objection.
Whether charges for materials and technician services are recoverable under a claim for 'professional dental services.'
Whether a single jury instruction must contain a complete statement of all issuable facts in the case.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the jury having determined the facts on the evidence against the defendants, that determination is binding upon this court.”

“A party moving to strike out the answer of a witness must specify the grounds of his objection to it in like manner as he is required to specify the grounds of bis objection to the question.”

“We think that the technician’s services and materials were merely incidental to and are included within the terms used, to wit: professional services rendered.”

JORGENSEN, J.,

pro

tem.

This is an action by plaintiff as assignee of Dr. Evans, a duly licensed doctor of dental surgery for the reasonable value of professional dental services rendered at the request of defendants in and about the mouth of Evelyn A. Hoge, one of the defendants. On defendants’ demand the case was tried by a jury and a

[182]

verdict rendered for the full amount prayed for in the complaint, to wit, $617, and defendants appeal from the judgment.

Defendants contended there was an express agreement to do the work for $503, with the possible increase or decrease of said amount by $10, and that the services alleged to have been rendered were performed in a careless, negligent and unskilful manner and that defendant Evelyn A. Hoge was caused great pain and suffering, to her damage in the sum of $5,000.

The evidence of Dr. Evans and his assistant clearly showed that the sum of $503 mentioned for the work on his employment was a mere estimate only, and although defendants’ evidence tended to the contrary, the jury having determined the facts on the evidence against the defendants, that determination is binding upon this court.

The evidence was ample upon which to base the jury’s verdict that the dental services were not rendered on an express agreement for a definite amount, and were reasonably worth the amount set forth in the complaint.

The contention that the gold plates were not usable and therefore valueless on account of the negligence and lack of skill of Dr. Evans was also determined by the jury against defendants. The testimony of Dr. Evans and three dental surgeons amply supports the contention that the work on the plates was skilfully performed. Dr. Evans’ testimony supports the finding that the plates positively did fit and should be and were usable.

Opposed to this is the evidence of Mrs. Hoge that they were not usable and caused bleeding, pain, etc. She did not call the dentist who she claims did a fine job after Dr. Evans failed. It is true that the testimony of Dr. Evans on this point was elicited by a question of defendants and that his answer: “The plates as delivered to her positively did fit her month” was not responsive to the question. The following is quoted from the record:

Bennett v. Hoge

AI Brief

JORGENSEN, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief