The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

A small piece of steel pierced P's left eye and lodged in it. It flew from a hammer or hatchet used by another person. The eye colored up, and blood from the wound went clear to P's belt. D, an ophthalmologist or eye specialist, was immediately called but could not be reached. P called the Ottumwa hospital and arrived there not later than 7:15. Dr. D. D. Emerson, a general practitioner examined the eye externally and with an ophthalmoscope, saw an injury to the eye which was externally apparent, ordered X rays taken of the eye and then called D. Seven X rays of the eye were taken, some of which showed the foreign body in the eye. D arrived and examined the eye externally and with an ophthalmoscope, to look through the eye for possible foreign bodies in it and for damage to the eye that might be detected. D, Doctor Emerson and the radiologist then examined the X-rays. Doctor Emerson testifies that none of them saw the foreign body in the eye nor in the X-rays thereof. The two named doctors did see a red spot on the sclera, the white part of the eye, which Doctor Emerson says could have been a bruise and could have been a point of entry into the eye of a foreign body. 'It was possible either way. You never know for sure.' There was an injury to the lower eyelid, into which D probed and removed a small piece of steel. No attempt was made to remove the piece of steel embedded in the eyeball. P returned to work the next night. He suffered almost unbearable pain in his eye. P recontacted D, who examined him and got more X-rays. D told P of the foreign body and how to get it removed in the hospital in Iowa City. At the hospital, a piece of steel was removed through an incision with a magnet. The piece was shaped somewhat like a half moon, about 1/16-inch wide and 1/8-inch long. The eye was inflamed from infection. After treating this condition for 18 days, it was found necessary to remove the eye. P sued D. It was clearly established that D should have discovered the object sooner. A doctor testified that the infection occurred upon first contact with the object, and an earlier removal would not have made a difference. At the close of P's case, the trial court directed a verdict for D because of claimed insufficient evidence. There was no evidence that any alleged negligence of D was the proximate cause of P's loss and damage.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.