THE HOSPITAL CASE.

Observer, Volume 7, Issue 333, 25 April 1885, Page 3

THE HOSPITAL CASE.

I cannot unreservedly endorse the remarks of my contemporaries on the case of Smith v. Bond, an action to recover £500 for alleged negligence. The fact remains that one of the poor fellow's legs is six inches shorter than the other, and that ho is incapaciated for life from active pursuits. What is the obvious . inference, but that " someone had blundered?" Whether the responsibility for crippling of Smith rests on Dr Bond or Dr Richardson cannot alter this fact in the- least. /'Now if someone employed in a warehouse or draper's shop liad blunderingly cut six inches too much off a roll of silk, there is little doubt that the responsibility would have been fixed upon some individual, and that he would have promptly received his walking ticket. But what is a man's leg to a piece of silk ? The evidence of the nurses and others indicated very clearly that Dr Bond was

too much addicted to mild dissipation and flirtations of lawn tennis to devote that' attention to Smith's leg which the seriourness of the case demanded. But Smith will be for ever debarred from the pleasures of that alluring game. A man with one of his legs curtailed by six inches is neither likely to become a favorite with, the fair sex, nor to distinguish himself by his agility in lawn tennis, or any other open air game.