As to the legal meaning of the term “ordinary care and skill,” and the rules of evidence applicable in cases of malpractice, a full discussion will be had below, when considering the subject of civil liability for malpractice.
Civil Liability for Malpractice.
Any person holding himself out to be a physician or surgeon, or any physician or surgeon, who is guilty of malpractice, is liable for damages, to be recovered in a civil action, instituted by the person injured, or by those having a legal right to such person’s services. This is so whether the injured person actually employed the defendant to prescribe or treat him, or not. The liability flows out of the relationship, without regard to the element of employment, and it may result from negligence in treatment, or in prescribing, or in giving information and instructions to the patient as to how to take care of himself when under treatment. The rules of law applicable to the duties of a physician to his patient are stated and the authorities supporting them cited in Chapter IV. of this work.[195]
Ordinary Care and Skill Only Required.—The leading cases in America on the subject of civil liability for malpractice are: Leighton v. Sargent, 7 N. H., 460, and Carpenter v. Blake, 60 Barb., 485 (s. c. on appeal, 75 N. Y., 12). In the former case the Court said: “In a science encumbered with so many sources of error and difficulties, it is obvious what cause we have for proceeding with the utmost caution, and for advancing from step to step with the greatest circumspection. It is in consideration of those peculiar difficulties that beset and encompass the physician and surgeon, that all enlightened courts have held that but ordinary care and skill shall be required of them, and that mere errors of judgment shall be overlooked, if the general character of treatment has been honest and intelligent, and that the result of the case shall not determine the amount of the responsibility to which he is held; and that when unskilfulness or negligent treatment of his patient is charged to a surgeon, it is not enough to show that he has not treated his patient in that mode or has not used measures which in the opinion of others, though medical men, the case required; because such evidence tends to prove errors of judgment, for which the defendant is not responsible, as much as it goes to prove a want of reasonable skill and care for which he may be responsible. Alone it is not evidence of the latter, and therefore a party must go further and prove, by other evidence, that the defendant assumed the character and undertook to act as a physician without the education, knowledge, and skill which entitled him to act in that capacity.”
In Carpenter v. Blake, upon the last appeal (75 N. Y., 12), it was said that the reasonable ordinary care and diligence which the law requires of physicians and surgeons is that which persons engaged in the same general line of practice have and exercise in like cases.[196]
Story’s Statement of the Rule.—Story in his work on Bailments, p. 433, with his usual felicitous method of statement says: “In all cases where skill is required it is to be understood that it means ordinary skill in the business or employment which the bailee undertakes; for he is not presumed to undertake for extraordinary skill, which belongs to a few men only in his business or employment, or for extraordinary endowments or acquirements. Reasonable skill constitutes the measure of the engagement in regard to the thing undertaken.”
Occult Influences Should be Considered by Lawyers and Judges.—In this connection it should be borne in mind by lawyers and judges, that in the case of a physician treating disease, or a surgeon repairing an injury, occult influences frequently play a most important part. Professor Elwell in his work on Malpractice, etc., p. 25, lays great stress on this element of uncertainty. He says: “In the case of physicians, surgeons, attorneys, etc., another and important element besides skill enters into the result, and for this reason the degree of responsibility is to a certain extent and in a manner indicated and influenced. This important element is the operation of causes and influences over which the practitioner has but little or no control. They are occult, and no human foresight is able to anticipate them before they have completely deranged and materially interfered with his plans by bringing about a different result than that confidently depended upon.”[197]
Change and Advancement in Medical Knowledge also to be Considered.—It should on the other hand be clearly understood that the constant change and improvement which are going on in medical and surgical education, in the discovery of new remedies and new methods of treatment, and in the invention of new instruments, tend constantly to elevate the average skill and intelligence of the profession, and with them the standard by which the courts will determine liability for negligence. What would have been, but a few years ago, fully recognized by the courts as ordinary skill in the treatment of disease and the performance of operations, would now be regarded as antiquated and less than ordinary skill, because of the advancement in the knowledge of means which can be devoted to the treatment of disease and injury.[198]
We have already seen that what is the degree of skill to be required of one practising in a small town or a country district sparsely inhabited, and what is required in the case of a city practitioner, may differ to some extent with the circumstances. Quacks and pretenders, however, must be judged by the standard of regular practitioners.[199]