LIABILITIES 77 



attempting to treat an injured finger.^"^ The same 

 rule would apply here as in other cases of negli- 

 gence. Thus in Cleveland v. Spier -^ the defend- 

 ants were held liable for an injury to an eye, while 

 drilling into a gas main, because they did not use 

 the improved methods of drilling or screening, 

 which would have avoided the accident. If the 

 practitioner called does not possess the required 

 knowledge or skill, it is then his duty to call com- 

 petent assistance, or resign the case.-^ ''An error 

 in judgment, of a man skilled in a particular call- 

 ing, is not malpractice, unless it is a gross error. 

 But error in judgment in a science, of a man un- 

 skilled in that science (if such a thing can be), 

 is malpractice. In other words, a person attempt- 

 ing to practice, in physic or surgery, without first 

 having obtained a knowledge of such science, is 

 liable for all the damage that is the result of his 

 practice."-^ 



The science of medicine has made tremendous 

 advances within the past few years. New and 

 powerful aids for combating disease have been 

 furnished in the various sera, and antitoxins, and 

 bacterins. But with these new remedial agents 

 come new responsibilities. The man who uses 

 them recklessly or carelessly is an enemy to the 

 interests which he serves, and to the profession 

 to which he claims to belong. If in administer- 

 ing an anthrax preventive he uses a bowl kept 



20 Nelson v. Harrington, 72 Mich. 90 N. W. 278; Burnham 

 "Wis. 591. V. Jackson, 1 Colo. App. 237. 



21 16 C. B. (N. S.) 399, cited 23 Courtney v. Henderson, 

 by McClelland, Civil Malprac- McClelland. Civil Malpractice, 

 tice, 508. 273. 



22 Pepke V. Grace Hospital. 



