Special action upon the case, wherein the plaintiff declares that the defendant Baker being a surgeon, and Stapleton an apothecary, he employed them to cure his leg which had been broken and set, and the callous of the fracture formed; that in consideration of being paid for their skill and labour, &c. they undertook and promised, &c. but the defendants not regarding their promise and undertaking, and the duty of their business and employment, so ignorantly and unskilfully treated the plaintiff, that they ignorantly and unskilfully broke and disunited the callous of the plaintiff’s leg after it was set, and the callous formed, whereby he is damaged. The defendants pleaded not guilty, whereupon issue was joined, which was tried before the Lord Chief Justice Wilmot, and a verdict found for the plaintiff, damages £500. The substance of the evidence for the plaintiff at the trial was, first a surgeon was called, who swore that the plaintiff having broken both the bones of one of his legs, this witness set the same, that the plaintiff was under his hands nine weeks, that in a month’s time after the leg was set, he found the leg was healing and in a good way; the callous was formed, there was a little protuberance, but not more than usual; upon cross examination he said he was instructed in surgery by his father, that the callous was the uniting the bones, and that it was very dangerous to break or disunite the callous after it was formed.
John Latham an apothecary swore he attended the plaintiff nine weeks, who was then well enough to go home, that the bones were well united, that he was present with the plaintiff and defendants, and at first the defendants said the plaintiff had fallen into good hands; the second time he saw them all together the defendants said the same, but when he saw them together a third time there was some alteration, he said the plaintiff was then in a passion, and was unwilling to let the defendants do any thing to his leg; he said he had known such a thing done as disuniting the callous, but that had been only when a leg was set very crooked; but not where it was straight.
A woman called as a witness, swore that when the plaintiff came home he could walk with crutches, that the defendant Baker put on to the plaintiff’s leg an heavy steel thing that had teeth, and would stretch or lengthen the leg, that the defendants broke the leg again, and three or four months afterwards the plaintiff was still very ill and bad of it.
The daughter of the plaintiff swore, that the defendant Stapleton was first sent for to take off the bandage from the plaintiff’s leg; when he came he declined to do it himself, and desired the other defendant Baker might be called in to assist; when Baker came he sent for the machine that was mentioned; plaintiff offered to give Baker a guinea, but Stapleton advised him not to take it then, but said they might be paid all together when the business was done; that the third time the defendants came to the plaintiff, Baker took up the plaintiff’s foot in both his hands and nodded to Stapleton, and then Stapleton took the plaintiff’s leg upon his knee, and the leg gave a crack when the plaintiff cried out to them and said, “you have broke what nature had formed;” Baker then said to the plaintiff You must go through the operation of extension, and Stapleton said we have consulted and done for the best.
Another surgeon was called and swore, that in cases of crooked legs after they have been set, the way of making them straight is by compression and not by extension, and said he had not the least idea of the instrument spoken of for extension; he gave Baker a good character, as having been the first surgeon of St. Bartholomew’s hospital for twenty years, and said he had never known a case where the callous had deossified.
Another surgeon was called who swore, that when the callous is formed to any degree, it is difficult to break it, and the callous in this case must have been formed, or it would not have given a crack, and said extension was improper, and if the patient himself had asked him to do it, he would have declined it, and if the callous had not been hard he would not have done it without the consent of the plaintiff, that compression was the proper way, and the instrument improper; he said the defendant Baker was eminent in his profession. Another surgeon was called who swore, that if the plaintiff was capable of bearing his foot upon the ground, he would not have disunited the callous if he had been desired by him, but in no case whatever without consent of the patient; if the callous was loose it was proper to make the extension to bring the leg into a right line. A servant of the plaintiff swore the plaintiff had put his foot upon the ground three or four weeks before this was done.
The counsel for the defendants at the trial, for Baker, relied upon the good character which was given him, and objected there was no evidence to affect the other defendant Stapleton the apothecary; but the Lord Chief Justice thought there was such evidence against both the defendants as ought to be left to the jury, as the nodding, the advising Baker not to take the guinea offered to him by the plaintiff, besides the apothecary first proposed sending for Baker; the plaintiff was in no pain before they extended his leg, and he only sent to Stapleton to have the bandage taken off: the Lord Chief Justice asked the Jury whether they intended to find the damages against both the defendants, and they found £500 against them jointly, and he said he was well satisfied with the verdict.
It was now moved that the verdict ought to be set aside because the action is upon a joint contract, and there is no evidence of a joint undertaking by both defendants; the plaintiff sends for Stapleton to take off the bandage who declines doing it, and says, I do not understand this matter, you must send for a surgeon; accordingly Mr. Baker is sent for, who enters upon the business as a surgeon unconnected with Stapleton, who, it does not appear, ever undertook for any skill about the leg, so the jury have found him guilty without any evidence. That Baker has been above twenty years the first surgeon in St. Bartholomew’s hospital, reads lectures in surgery and anatomy, and is celebrated for his knowledge in his profession as well as his humanity; and to charge such a man with ignorance and unskilfulness upon the records of this court is most dreadful; all the witnesses agreed Mr. Baker doth not want knowledge, therefore this verdict ought not to stand. 2dly, It was objected that the evidence given does not apply to this action, which is upon a joint contract; the evidence is that the callous of the leg was broke without the plaintiff’s consent; but there is no evidence of ignorance or want of skill, and therefore the action ought to have been trespass vi & armis for breaking the plaintiff’s leg without his consent; all the surgeons said they never do any thing of this kind without consent, and if the plaintiff should not be content with the present damages, but bring another action of trespass vi & armis, could this verdict be pleaded in bar? the court without hearing the counsel for the plaintiff gave judgment for him.
Curia: 1st, It is objected that this is laid to be a joint undertaking, and therefore it ought to be proved, and we are of opinion that it ought; the question therefore is, whether there is any evidence of a joint undertaking; we are of opinion there is; Mr. Stapleton declines acting alone, but in concurrence with Mr. Baker attends the plaintiff every time any thing is done, and assists jointly with Mr. Baker; this appears in evidence, and is sufficient, for there is no occasion to prove an express joint contract, promise or undertaking; when an offer is made to Baker of a guinea, Stapleton says, you had better be paid all at last; they both attended plaintiff together every time, and Stapleton said, we have consulted and done for the best; when the plaintiff complained of what they had done, Stapleton considered himself as one of the persons to join in the cure of the leg, for he put his hand on the knee when Baker nodded, and then the bone cracked; he is the original person aiding in this matter, and there is no ground for this objection. When we consider the good character of Baker, we cannot well conceive why he acted in the manner he did; but many men very skilful in their profession have frequently acted out of the common way for the sake of trying experiments; several of the witnesses proved that the callous was formed, and that it was proper to remove the plaintiff home; that he was free from pain and able to walk with crutches; we cannot conceive what the nature of the instrument made use of is; why did Baker put it on when he said that plaintiff had fallen into good hands, and when plaintiff only sent for him to take off the bandage, it seems as if Mr. Baker wanted to try an expedient with this new instrument.
2dly, It is objected that this is not the proper action, and that it ought to have been trespass vi & armis; in answer to this, it appears from the evidence of the surgeons that it was improper to disunite the callous without consent; this is the usage and law of surgeons; then it was ignorance and unskilfulness in that very particular, to do contrary to the rule of the profession, what no surgeon ought to have done; and indeed it is reasonable that a patient should be told what is about to be done to him, that he may take courage and put himself in such a situation as to enable him to undergo the operation; it was objected this verdict and recovery cannot be pleaded in bar to an action of trespass vi & armis to be brought for the same damage; but we are clear of opinion it may be pleaded in bar. That the plaintiff ought to receive a satisfaction for the injury, seems to be admitted; but then it is said the defendants ought to have been charged as trespassers vi & armis; the court will not look with eagle’s eyes to see whether the evidence applies exactly or not to the case, when they can see the plaintiff has obtained a verdict for such damages as he deserves, they will establish such verdict if it be possible. For any thing that appears to the court this was the first experiment made with this new instrument, and if it was, it was a rash action, and he who acts rashly acts ignorantly; and although the defendants in general may be as skilful in their respective professions as any two gentlemen in England, yet the court cannot help saying that in this particular case they have acted ignorantly and unskilfully, contrary to the known rule and usage of surgeons.