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.!7 
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 Ia. 
286, 11 Am. Rep. 141; Almond 
v. Nugent, 34 Ia. 300, 11 Am. 
R. 147; Peck v. Hutchinson, 88 
Ta. 320, 55 N. W. 511; Gramm 
v. Boener, 56 Ind. 497; White- 
sell v. Hill, 66 N. W. 894; Small 
v. Howard, 128 Mass. 131; 
Hathorn v. Richmond, 48 Vt. 
557. 
17 Berry v. State (Tex.), 135 
S. W. 631. 
18 Tefft v. Wilcox, 6 Kas. 46; 
Wells v. World’s Dispensary 
Med. Assn., 9 N. Y. 452; Heath 
v. Glisan, 3 Ore. 64; Graham vy. 
Gautier, 21 Tex. 111; Gore v. 
Brockman, 138 Mo. App. 231, 
119 S. W. 1082; West v. Mar- 
tin, 31 Mo. 375; DuBoise v. 
Decker, 130 N. Y. 325. 
19 Courtney ov. Henderson 
(Marine Court, New York). Me- 
Clelland, Civil Malpractice, 273. 
