From the Northern Whig, 21 March, 1906:
“ACTION AGAINST A BANGOR DOCTOR
TUGHAN V DARNELL
THE DEFENDANT’S CASE
In the Crown Court of the County Courthouse, Crumlin Road, yesterday, before the Lord Chief Baron and a County Antrim special jury, the hearing of the case was continued in which Alfred Ernest Tughan, through his father Mr George Tughan, brought an action against Dr Charles K Darnell, Bangor, County Down, to recover £250 for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by reason of negligence on the part of the defendant while attending him as a medical doctor [by reason of having recommended that any pain to the defendant’s testicles due to orchitis be treated with belladonna lotion, without warning about the dangers of overuse of such lotion].
Messrs Stephen Ronan KC; WM McGrath KC; and Henry Hanna (instructed by Mr William Alexander) appeared for the plaintiff; and the defendant was represented by Serjeant Dodd KC, MP; and Messrs James Chambers KC; and Edward Cuming KC (instructed by Messrs Daniel O’Rorke & Son).
At the sitting of the Court,
Dr William Bond McQuitty, in reply to Mr Ronan, said that he remembered going to see the patient on April 7th, 1904. He found him restless, delirious, and feverish; the pupils were dilated, the mouth and throat were dry, and his pulse was fast. He was suffering from belladonna poisoning, along with orchitis following mumps. He was dangerously ill. The skin of the testicles was abraded.
His Lordship – You were occupied in trying to save his life.
Witness – Yes.
Mr Ronan – And he did so.
This closed the evidence for the plaintiff.
Dr Darnell was then called, and examined by Mr Chambers KC. He had, he said, been practising since 1898, and was six years in Bangor. Witness detailed the circumstances under which he met Mr Tughan senior, when the latter asked him to go to Groomsport and see his son… He saw the lad in bed, and heard the history of the case… He told the father the state the boy was in, and that his condition was not serious. The essential thing was that the part should be elevated and supported, and witness described the method of treatment to be followed. There was practically no pain, but should there be any, some lotion ordered might be sprinkled on a piece of lint and laid on the [testicle]…
He had arranged to be back from Newcastle on the Wednesday morning… he went out to Groomsport to see the patient, and on arrival at the house the mother was with him…The lad was in a serious condition, and witness was absolutely shocked at his state. The [testicle] was swollen and excoriated… He said the boy must have suffered frightful agony, and the mother replied that they had to hold him down. He said, surely the agony the patient was suffering might have given her some indication not to persevere to extremes, and that the results could hardly be those from a soothing lotion… She answered that she thought that was what he wanted.
That was the last he saw of the boy. Subsequently the father said he wished Doctors Kirwood and Gorman to attend the boy, and witness said he thought Mr Tughan was not right or justified in taking the case out of his hands, as what had occurred was really due to the way the lotion had been used, and Mr Tughan said ‘We don’t blame you, doctor, but Dr Kirwood is the boy’s uncle, and knows Dr Gorman very well, and we would feel more satisfied having the boy in their hands.’
Under cross-examination by Mr Ronan KC, Dr Darnell stated that… he intended the liniment to be used until pain, if any, was relieved. He did not think pain would be caused by the liniment if used as directed. He used the word ‘sprinkle.’
Dr HL McKisack, examined by Mr Cuming, described his qualifications, and said belladonna liniment was a usual remedy in cases of orchitis… It was unusual to give written directions for the use of poisonous liniments… The liniment referred to was almost a household remedy… He would have said to use the lotion sparingly. … No authority could have foreseen that the boy would have been made such a mess of in the nursing… too much lotion was used, and the part kept soaking in a puddle of it for three days.
Professor Sinclair, in reply to Mr Chambers KS, said if the nature of medicines were described many patients would decline to use them.
Mr Ronan – If you were giving a bottle of this kind to a man in Mr Tughan’s position to give to his wife and apply to her son, would you think it prudent to tell him how much of it he ought to use.
Professor Sinclair – I would not state the exact number of drops, but the word ‘sprinkling’ to my mind is sufficient.
Mr Ronan repeated the question, and witness answered in the affirmative, saying he would not be more specific than to say that a little should be sprinkled upon the lint. It would be more prudent to state how often it was to be used.
Mr Ronan – If these people had been warned, would not all this expense and suffering have been obviated.
Professor Sinclair – The case is so extremely rare that I do not think the profession will alter their habit very much.
Mr Ronan – Do you think it prudent to tell Tughan to use caution?
Professor Sinclair – It would be prudent.
Mr Ronan – And imprudent not to tell him?
Professor Sinclair – Yes.
Mr Ronan – There is a possibility of mistake among lay people of using too much from the word ‘sprinkling?’
Professor Sinclair – It would appear so from this case.”
The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded damages of £65 against Dr Darnell. Notice was served by his legal team in the King’s Bench Division to have this set aside, but the case was subsequently settled between the parties.
The Irish Independent of 14 June 1906 reports that a beautifully illuminated address, a handsome silver rose bowl, and a puree containing 100 guineas were subsequently presented to Dr Charles K Darnell, subscribed for by numerous friends and patients. According to the Independent,
“[t]he address conveyed the signatories’ sympathy in the trying ordeal to which the Doctor had lately been, in their opinion, so unjustly subjected, and their entire confidence in his medical skill and ability… Dr Darnell suitably replied, saying that that manifestation of esteem for him meant to him a practical reversal of the verdict recently recorded against him.”
The signatures appended included those of the Dowager Marchioness of Dufferin and Ava, Lady Hermione Blackwood, Lord and Lady Clanmorris and the Very Rev E Maguire, DD Dean of Down.
The ‘Legal Retrospect’ in the Dublin Daily Express of 1 January 1907 included Tughan v Darnell in its summary of significant legal cases of 1906, describing it as one “which possessed considerable interest for the medical profession.“
There is a nice ending to this story. On the 23 July 1910, under the heading, “Irish Medical Students’ Successes in Scotland,” the Northern Whig listed two students who had passed the final examination of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, and Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons in Glasgow, concluded in Edinburgh on the 20th.
The first of these students was Alfred Ernest Tughan, of Belfast.
Share this:
