{
  "id": 2904620,
  "name": "Charles Blodgett, Appellant, v. George W. Nevius, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Blodgett v. Nevius",
  "decision_date": "1914-11-19",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,877",
  "first_page": "544",
  "last_page": "545",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 Ill. App. 544"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 188,
    "char_count": 2243,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7015644272837067e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7009034117433102
    },
    "sha256": "daa5e6bd773b5f1092a54c2fd225721a5c5058b58a8edc620346abcc64b23708",
    "simhash": "1:75f7af9a188f80f8",
    "word_count": 374
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:10.053698+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles Blodgett, Appellant, v. George W. Nevius, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scanlan\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scanlan"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Elmer D. Brothers, Clyde C. Colwell and Emery S. Walker, for appellant.",
      "Robert J. Folonie, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles Blodgett, Appellant, v. George W. Nevius, Appellee.\nGen. No. 19,877.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. John A. Dowdall, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 19, 1914.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 474 \u2014when objection is necessary to preserve right of review. A plaintiff cannot complain on appeal of improper and prejudicial remarks of the defendant\u2019s counsel in his closing argument when the record shows that no objection was made to the same and that the court\u2019s attention was not called to the remarks.\n2. Dentists, \u00a7 3 \u2014what instructions are proper in action for malpractice. In an action for alleged malpractice in extracting a tooth, instructions announcing familiar rules of law as to the degree of skill and care required of dentists but not directing a verdict or undertaking to state what facts would constitute negligence, cannot be considered erroneous.\n3. Dentists, \u00a7 3 \u2014when burden of proof rests on plaintiff. In an action for alleged malpractice in extracting a tooth, whereby a fracture of the jaw resulted, the burden rested on the plaintiff to show want of care or skill in the treatment, and that the bad result following the treatment was the result of such want of care and skill, and no presumption that the defendant was unskilful or negligent would follow from the mere fact that the jaw was fractured and that the plaintiff was otherwise injured.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction on the case by Charles Blodgett against George W. Nevius and Laird W. Nevius, as copartners, for alleged malpractice in extracting a tooth, whereby a fracture of the jaw resulted. At the close of the evidence the plaintiff discontinued the suit as to the defendant Laird W. Nevius. A verdict was rendered finding the defendant not guilty, motion for a new trial was overruled, judgment followed and the plaintiff appealed.\nElmer D. Brothers, Clyde C. Colwell and Emery S. Walker, for appellant.\nRobert J. Folonie, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0544-01",
  "first_page_order": 570,
  "last_page_order": 571
}