Evidence Of Negligence Research Articles

Negligence "Coal Hole" Cases: Constructive Notice Arising from Condition of the Premises: Failure to Lock as Evidence of Negligence

Negligence "Coal Hole" Cases: Constructive Notice Arising from Condition of the Premises: Failure to Lock as Evidence of Negligence

Workmen's Compensation. Evidence. Settlement between Third-Party and Employee as Evidence of Negligence in Collateral Suit

Workmen's Compensation. Evidence. Settlement between Third-Party and Employee as Evidence of Negligence in Collateral Suit

The Treatment of Late Post-Irradiation Ulcers with Radon Ointment

This report is concerned with the treatment of radiation skin ulcers with alpha particles from radon. The utilization of alpha-radiating agents in post-irradiation ulcers was first suggested in 1925 by Fabry (1–3), who used Thorium X in concentrations from 1,500 to 2,000 electrostatic units per gram vaseline base. The ointment was left in place two to three days, and the treatment was repeated after three to six weeks. The favorable results reported by Fabry were confirmed by Delmes (4), who employed considerably smaller doses (20 e.s.u.). Jessner (5) obtained similarly good results using an ointment containing Thorium X marketed under the name of Doramad and containing 2,000 e.s.u. per gram of ointment. The most extensive studies in the treatment of post-irradiation skin reactions with alpha radiation are those of E. Uhlmann (6–13) undertaken in 1929. The encouraging clinical results demonstrated by Uhlmann convinced us that this method of treatment deserved further study. Skin changes following radiation therapy have become more common in recent years. The reason for this increased frequency is the far more intensive irradiation employed in the last two decades. The cutaneous reactions which occur as immediate sequelae of treatment, erythema and radio-epidermite, are anticipated as the result of intensive irradiation, while reactions which occur after an interval of about six months are unpredictable. When late sequelae of intensive irradiation occur, they vary considerably in their degree of severity. In the order of frequency of occurrence, they are patchy pigmentation, depigmentation, atrophy, telangiectasia, subcutaneous sclerosis, ulceration, hyperkeratosis. These skin changes have been known since the early days of medical use of x-rays and radium. Originally they could almost invariably be traced to faulty technic, inadequate protection, or to occupational exposure. The great advance in knowledge of radiation physics and biology and the subsequent development of modern technic have provided means of proper protection, but skin reactions persist, necessitating a new approach from both a medical and legal standpoint. From the legal point of view, the post-irradiation skin reaction should be regarded properly as an unavoidable and unpredictable aftermath of the therapeutic method, unless evidence of negligence or gross lack of knowledge on the part of the practitioner can be shown to exist. From the medical standpoint, skin reactions occurring immediately after radiation treatment heal spontaneously, as a rule, in four to six weeks after completion of exposure, whereas delayed skin reactions, occurring after about six months or later, may not regress spontaneously and therefore demand attention. Atrophy of the skin and telangiectasia do not require treatment, except for cosmetic reasons. Ulceration and hyperkeratosis must have immediate and special care.

British Food Journal Volume 39 Issue 12 1937

British Food Journal Volume 39 Issue 12 1937

Tort—Negligence — Quasi-Parental Authority — Alleged Dangerous Game—‘Riders and Horses’—Order to Boy to Take Part—Injury —No Evidence of Negligence

Tort—Negligence — Quasi-Parental Authority — Alleged Dangerous Game—‘Riders and Horses’—Order to Boy to Take Part—Injury —No Evidence of Negligence

Medico-Legal Department

Menopause Following a Single Application of Roentgen Rays to the Head A Ridiculously Assumed Conclusion Rulison vs. Victor X-ray Corporation (Iowa), 223 N.W.R. 745 The Victor X-ray Corporation, through one Watson, was installing a second-hand roentgen-ray machine in a physician's office, with a view to its sale. To make a demonstration, Watson requested the physician's office secretary and assistant to submit to an exposure from the machine. She did so, and later, claiming to have been injured thereby, brought suit. Judgment was rendered in her favor. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Iowa, but the judgment was affirmed. In demonstrating the roentgen-ray machine it had installed, the defendant, through its agent Watson, applied the cone to the plaintiff's head and took three films in succession, with brief intervals, at one sitting. The focal point was the occipital lobe of the brain. Some days later the plaintiff began to feel soreness in her head. Subsequently she lost her hair from an area four inches square. She became subject to a chronic condition of sick headaches, referred to in the record as “ophthalmoplegia migraine.” The “muscles of accommodation of the pupil” of her right eye ceased to function, and the eyelid was affected. The menopause came on, although the plaintiff was only 36 years old. Watson testified that nothing occurred that would have caused a burn. He estimated the dosage at 580 milliampere-seconds, concededly a normal dosage that could not result in injury. The testimony on both sides, however, indicated that the loss of hair was the result of a second degree roentgen burn and that it could not have occurred if less than 1,200 milliampere-seconds had been applied. A technician who saw the demonstration testified that its duration was longer and the distance from the focal point shorter than were indicated by Watson. She testified, too, to the heating of wires, which required an interval of stoppage to cool them and indicated a want of control of the dosage. The defendant contended that there was no evidence of negligence, but the Supreme Court was of opinion that there was enough to take the question to the jury. The defendant took exception to the refusal of the trial court to withdraw from the jury all evidence concerning the plaintiff's menopause and the impairment of her vision, claiming that there was no evidence to show a causal relation between those conditions, if they existed, and the application of the roentgen rays.

Evidence. Res Gestae. Violation of Rules of Railway Company as Evidence of Negligence

Evidence. Res Gestae. Violation of Rules of Railway Company as Evidence of Negligence

Carriers. Injuries to Passengers. Evidence of Negligence

Carriers. Injuries to Passengers. Evidence of Negligence

Evidence of Negligence: Proximate Cause

Evidence of Negligence: Proximate Cause

Physicians and Surgeons; Dentists. Evidence of Negligence

Physicians and Surgeons; Dentists. Evidence of Negligence

Federal Employers' Liability Act. Evidence. Evidence of Contributory Negligence. Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Jones (U. S. Sup. Ct.), 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 513

Federal Employers' Liability Act. Evidence. Evidence of Contributory Negligence. Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Jones (U. S. Sup. Ct.), 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 513

Violation of Child Labor Law as Evidence of Negligence

Violation of Child Labor Law as Evidence of Negligence