Document Type

Response or Comment

Publication Date

1920

Abstract

In the recent case of Perkins v. Trueblood, (Cal., May, 1919), 191 Pac. 642, the facts were that, in March, 1912, the defendant, a surgeon, set the leg of the plaintiff, but as the fracture did not heal satisfactorily "the defendant separated the surfaces of the bone during the month of April, 1912, and again set the plaintiff's leg." In a suit for malpractice, begun on April 9, 1913, it was held, that the cause of action "was not barred by the CODE OF PROCEDURE, Article 340, subd. 3, prescribing a one year limitation period in such cases." It is difficult to tell from the report of the case what the theory of the court was as to the cause of action and the running of the statute of limitation, but it is evident that the court must have considered this not a case of "continuous trespass," with the old connotation of that term, but rather as a case of "repeated wrong," and that the statute began to run not from March, 1912, when the leg was originally set, but from April, 1912, the date when it was negligently reset.


Share

COinS