Brown v. Shyne

New York Court of Appeals · 1926 · Torts

TortsNegligenceMedical malpracticeNegligence per seStatutory violationsunlicensed practitionermedical licensemalpractice

Facts

Plaintiff hired defendant to give chiropractic treatment for a disease or physical condition. Defendant was not licensed to practice medicine, though he held himself out as able to diagnose and treat disease, and plaintiff became paralyzed after nine treatments; on appeal, the court assumed the paralysis was caused by the treatment. Plaintiff introduced evidence about the manner of treatment and expert evidence that the treatment departed from recognized theory or practice, caused the injury, and should have alerted a qualified person to the risk. At trial, after amendment of the complaint, the judge instructed the jury that defendant's violation of the Public Health Law could be considered some evidence of negligence.

Issue

Whether a defendant's violation of the Public Health Law by practicing medicine without a license may itself, or as some evidence, support a civil negligence recovery for injuries from treatment without proof that the injury was caused by the lack of skill or care the licensing statute was designed to prevent.

Rule

A statutory violation gives rise to a civil remedy only when the plaintiff's injury is caused by the danger against which the statute was intended to protect and obedience to the statute would have obviated the injury. In malpractice or negligence actions against an unlicensed practitioner, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant failed to exercise the skill and care of qualified practitioners and that this lack of skill or care caused the injury; absence of a license alone is not evidence of negligence unless there is a logical connection between the statutory breach and the alleged negligence.

🔒

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 Buffalo, Nora Kim sought treatment for chronic wrist pain from Evan Pike, who advertised therapeutic joint manipulation but had no state license to practice medicine. During a session, Evan used a technique that orthopedic experts later agreed was widely accepted and performed carefully, but Nora suffered a rare nerve inflammation that can occur even when the procedure is properly done.

If Nora sues Evan for negligence, what is the strongest argument against imposing civil liability based solely on his unlicensed practice?

Explanation. The governing rule is that violation of a medical licensing statute does not itself create civil liability. The plaintiff must show that the injury resulted from the danger the statute was intended to prevent—unskilled or careless treatment—and that obedience to the statute would have obviated the injury. If the treatment was properly performed and the harm was a rare complication unrelated to lack of skill or care, the lack of license is not enough.