Williams v. LeBar

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Williams v. LeBar, 141 Pa. 149 (Pa. 1891)
21 A. 525; 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1055
McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Stebbett, Williams

Williams v. LeBar

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The defendants are physicians, and were sued in the court below for signing a certificate of plaintiff’s insanity, without having made a careful examination. The case was tried by the learned judge without a jury, with the result of a judgment in favor of the defendants.

The record is voluminous, with twenty-five assignments of error. They relate to the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The learned judge found that the certificate was false; that is to say, the defendants were mistaken, and the plaintiff *159was not insane at the time it was given. But upon the other question, the negligence, he found against the plaintiff. He very properly held that no presumption of negligence arose from the mere fact that the defendants were mistaken as to the fact of insanity. He further found that they had made an examination of the plaintiff, and that the onus of showing negligence was upon him. The most the case discloses is an error of judgment, to which the most careful and skilful physician is liable in a mysterious disease like insanity. We do not think it necessary to discuss the numerous assignments of error. None of them is sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
JOSEPHUS WILLIAMS v. AMZI LeBAR
Cited By
42 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
(a) In trespass against physicians for negligence in giving a false certificate for the commission of the plaintiff to a hospital for the insane, under the act of April 20, 18G9, P. L. 78, the court below found, as facts, that although the plaintiff was not insane at the time, yet the defendants wei’e not guilty of negligence: 1. In such case, the court properly ruled that, the certificate averring that an examination had been made as required by the act, the burden of proving negligence was upon the plaintiff, and that no presumption of negligence arose from the fact that the defendants were mistaken as to the plaintiff’s insanity. 2. The release of one of two joint tort-feasors is a discharge of both; and this, notwithstanding the mutual intention of the plaintiff and of the defendant released was that such release should not affect the suit of the plaintiff pending against the other defendant: Per Schuyler, P. J.