LADY AND DENTIST.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15504, 10 January 1914, Page 2 (Supplement)

LADY AND DENTIST.

STRANGE TECHNICAL ASSAULT. [ A somewhat peculiar action was heard in. the Bow County Court recently in which a practising dentist was sued for damages for ,a technical assault for having administered cocaine to a lady patient, in extracting a- tooth, when she had told him she did no* want that anaesthetic. PlaitA'ff was Miss Marie V. Brittlebank, of and the defendant Mr. Walter C. Watson, of South Woodford, from whom ' l was sought to recover £25. On the occA'i° of plaintiff's third visit to defendant's surgery, owing to what she had previously experienced through something which, 'with her consent, had been, injected into h»W gum to obviate the pain of extraction, shi> Instructed him not to administer cocaine or any other anaesthetic. That request was nt»t obeyed, and it was now contended that> -.thereby the defendant had committed an j\a~ault, as a result of. which the lady had experienced suffering and expense, her subset - *nt state of health necessitating her visYti relatives in Somersetshire. The dii*' en <fe- nt . plaintiff stated, when she said sht' did not want the cocaine used for the extraction, said he would give her somethL\' elseDefendant said he was not qiunified or registered as a dentist, but he been connected with the business altog^'. er about 15 years, and had been in bun ness or himself at his present address foi' about five years. On the occasion in qix 'Stion, when the plaintiff, who had been to him before, visited his surgery, he asked h<»." 'f she would have anything on the too. & which she wanted extracted, and slie mu.v' have replied in the affirmative or he would not have done it. He used codrenine, ) which contained adrenalin and chlore- [ stone. j

Judge Smyly remarked that theTe had been no want of skill complained of in the matter of extraction. The plaintiff had told defendant she did not want cocaine used, and from what transpired afterwards she came to the' conclusion that whatever had been injected into her gum did contain cocaine. The defendant should have known that codrenine contained cocaine. If he had told the lady that he would give her another substance, but it had cocaine in it, and if she did not want that she must have the tooth out without any anaesthetic and stand the pain, she would have had the opportunity of running her chance. Under the circumstances he did not think defendant was justified in giving her the stuff. She did not consent to anything that had cocaine in it. That was where the defendant failed in his duties, and that was where the technical assault came in, and th» plaintiff was entitled to damages. His judgment was for plaintiff for £15 and costs.