State of New York, Supreme Court : in the Supreme Court, James L. Van Ingen against Joshua Bennett.

Date:
[1855?]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: State of New York, Supreme Court : in the Supreme Court, James L. Van Ingen against Joshua Bennett. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

    10/44
    J. G. McChesney for the plaintiff. If the court please, this action, gentleman of the jury, is brought by the plaintiff, Dr. Van Ingen, to recover for services rendered as a surgeon and physician, in setting the bones of one of the defendant's legs, and in the sub- sequent medical and surgical treatment thereof. Some time in the month of January, 1855, Mr. Bennett was thrown from a load of hay, and falling upon the fro- zen ground, broke one of his legs at the knee-joint. The injury was not only an unusual one, but also one of rather a serious nature. Any serious injury at the knee-joint is at all times to be regarded with apprehension and so- licitude ; but where the injury is of so complicated a nature as is claimed this was, the case not only becomes more difficult to treat, but also infinitely more hazardous in its consequences. I propose simply to give you now a brief outline of the case, and when you shall have heard the whole case through on both sides, you will, I doubt not, be able to deal out between these parties such justice as the case requires. Mr. Bennett at a distance of about 12 miles from home, was unable to return in the condition in which his fall had left him, he was therefore carried to Dr. Wilson, liv- ing near by, who temporarily adjusted the injured limb so as to enable Mr. Bennett to return home. Dr. Van Ingen was called to see Mr. Bennett the same evening. He found him at his house lying on the floor, in a condition not much to be envied. A fracture of the tibia entering obliquely into the krfee- joint, and a dislocation of the fibula from its attachment at the head of the tibia, will not be controverted by the defence. We say, however, in addition, that the exter- nal condyle of the femur was also fractured obliquely into the knee-joint. Whether we or they are right in this position, the proof must determine; though I do not apprehend that the case will turn upon this point.