76 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



standard of skill must be judged according to the 

 locality and time.^*^ It is very evident that prac- 

 tice which would have been approved thirty years 

 ago would often be held gross negligence in the 

 present condition of the science. There was a 

 time when the use of olive oil in large doses was 

 considered by very many practitioners as proper 

 for the treatment of gall stones in human beings; 

 and good men were misled into thinking that the 

 resulting lumps of soap which were passed by the 

 patients were really softened gall stones; yet, as 

 we have seen (§38) this claim was the basis for 

 the revocation of a physician's license in Texas.^" 

 50. Errors of Judgment. It is a general rule 

 that a practitioner is not liable for a simple error 

 of judgment. ^^ But an error of judgment must not 

 be based upon ignorance. It is to be presumed 

 that the judgment has been formed based upon a 

 knowledge of the sciences involved, and ignorance 

 is not ' ' error of judgment. ' ' ^^ This rule applies 

 to those who attempt to practice without possess- 

 ing the ordinary qualification of the profession. 

 So a druggist was held liable for malpractice in 



16 Smothers v. Hanks, 34 la. is Tefft v. Wilcox, 6 Kas. 46; 

 286, 11 Am. Kep. 141; Almond Wells v. World's Dispensary 

 V. Nugent, 34 la. 300, 11 Am. Med. Assn., 9 N. Y. 452; Heath 

 R. 147; Peek v. Hutchinson, 88 v. Glisan, 3 Ore. 64; Graham v. 

 la. 320, 55 N. W. 511; Gramm Gautier, 21 Tex. Ill; Gore v. 

 V. Boener, 56 Ind. 497; White- Brockman, 138 Mo. App. 231, 

 sell V. Hill, 66 N.W. 894; Small 119 S. W. 1082; West v. Mar- 

 V. Howard, 128 Mass. 131; tin, 31 Mo. 375; DuBoise v. 

 Hathorn v. Richmond, 48 Vt. Decker, 130 N. Y. 325. 



557. 19 Courtney v. Henderson 



17 Berry v. State (Tex.), 135 (Marine Court, New York). Mc- 

 S. W, 631. Clclland, Civil Malpractice, 273. 



