# Getchell v. Mansfield

> Oregon Supreme Court · October 20, 1971 · 260 Or. 174

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551784

## Case

- **Full name:** GETCHELL, Appellant, v. MANSFIELD Et Al, Respondents
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 20, 1971
- **Citations:** 260 Or. 174; 489 P.2d 953; 1971 Ore. LEXIS 295
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by O'Connell
- **Judges:** O'Connell, McAllister, Denecke, Holman, Howell
- **Cited by:** 73 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551784

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- Noting that the reason for the expert testimony requirement is that “what is reasonable conduct for a professional is ordinarily not within the knowledge of the usual jury”
- explaining that the reason for that rule is “reasonable conduct for a professional is ordinarily not within the knowledge of the usual jury”
- recognizing that a professional acts negligently by failing to follow “the reasonable practice * * * in the community”
- explaining that what is reasonable for a profes- sional is not ordinarily within the knowledge of the jury

## Opinion text

O’CONNELL, C. J.,
dissenting.
I am of the opinion that the trial court erred in striking from the complaint the allegation that defendants were negligent in fading to advise plaintiff of alternative methods of treatment.
The majority opinion sustains the trial court’s action on the theory that taping plaintiff’s shoulder was not a feasible alternative treatment because there was testimony that plaintiff expressed to Dr. Mansfield her desire to resume playing golf. Plaintiff was not informed of the alternative treatment by taping because defendants assumed she would not have chosen such an alternative because of her desire to play golf. This did not give plaintiff the opportunity to choose the treatment she preferred. The choice was made by defendants based upon an assumption which might not have been correct. Plaintiff testified that she would have chosen the treatment by taping. The jury could have believed her. The jury could also have disbelieved Dr. Mansfield’s testimony that plaintiff expressed an interest in being treated in a manner which would allow her to continue playing golf. By striking the allegation of negligence based upon defendants’ failure to inform plaintiff of the alternative methods of treatment, she was deprived of having the jury consider an important theory of her ease.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551784. Public record. Not legal advice.