LIABILITIES 77 
attempting to treat an injured finger.2° The same 
rule would apply here as in other cases of negli- 
gence. Thus in Cleveland v. Spier 2! 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.2? ‘‘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.’ 78 
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. 
2116 C. B. (N.8.) 399, cited 23 Courtney v. Henderson. 
by McClelland, Civil Malprac- McClelland. Civil Malpractice, 
tice, 508. 273. 
22 Pepke v. Grace Hospital, 
