Becker v. Janinski

New York Supreme Court · 1891 · Torts

15 N.Y.S. 675 (1891)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsMedical malpracticePhysician abandonmentContributory negligenceDamagesmalpracticereasonable skillreasonable care

Facts

The plaintiff sued her former physician for malpractice arising from treatment following a miscarriage. The defendant visited her on the day of the miscarriage and the next two days, then stopped coming while she was not yet cured; the parties disputed whether he gave notice that he was leaving town and arranged for another physician. The plaintiff also claimed the defendant treated her unskillfully by failing to examine her properly and by failing to attempt to remove the retained after-birth, while the defendant offered reasons for not doing so. The defendant treated the plaintiff gratuitously, and there was also evidence that the plaintiff disobeyed instructions to remain quietly in bed.

Issue

Whether the defendant physician was liable for malpractice because he abandoned the plaintiff without consent or proper notice and/or treated her unskillfully during his attendance, and whether any recovery was barred or limited by the plaintiff's own negligence or by failure to distinguish injuries caused by the miscarriage from those caused by the defendant's maltreatment.

Rule

A physician does not promise a cure and is not liable for mere mistake of judgment unless it is so gross as to imply a lack of the reasonable skill or reasonable care ordinarily possessed and exercised by the profession. When a physician undertakes attendance for an indefinite period, he may cease visits only with the patient's consent, after timely notice enabling the patient to obtain another doctor, or when the patient's condition no longer requires treatment, which the physician judges at his peril. Gratuitous treatment does not lessen this duty, and a patient who disobeys medical directions or whose own negligence contributes to the injury cannot recover for resulting harm.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, Dr. Nina Patel treated Omar Reed for a severe throat infection. She used a course of treatment accepted by many ordinary physicians, but Omar's condition worsened and he later needed hospitalization.

If Omar sues only because the treatment failed to cure him, which is the strongest argument for Dr. Patel under the governing rule?

Explanation. The rule is that a physician does not promise a cure. Liability depends on failure to exercise the reasonable degree of skill and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by the profession, not on an unfavorable outcome alone.