The complaint of the plaintiff is, that, in the treatment of the wound under which he was suffering, the defendant did not furnish that degree of skill, learning and experience which was required of him, and which, in undertaking the case, he impliedly bound himself to furnish. It is not contended that he engaged to furnish extraordinary skill, or that he warranted a cure, but that in undertaking the case he held himself out as being a man of reasonable and ordinary skill and experience in his profession as a surgeon. His contract, as implied by law, is, so far as this point is concerned, that he possesses that reasonable degree of learning, skill and experience which is ordinarily possessed by others of his profession. Leighton v. Sargent, 7 Foster, 460. ' It must be the ordinary skill, learning and experience of the profession generally. Wilnot v. Howard, 39 Vt. 447. And, in judging of this degree of skill in any given case, regard is to be had to the advanced state of the profession at the time. McCandless v. Me Wha, 22 Penn. St. 261.
The instructions which were given upon this subject were in conformity to these principles, and the jury were distinctly told, that, in their estimate of the reasonable skill ordinarily possessed by others in the profession, regard was to be had to the present advanced state of the science of surgery. The plaintiff, however, complains that the rule, as given by the presiding judge, lowers the standard of learning and skill required for the practice of medicine and surgery, by including in the expression, “ others in the profession,” all the mountebanks, ignorant pretenders, and impostors who undertake the practice of medicine and surgery as their ordinary calling. The judge in his charge was speaking of the “ profession,” of the “ advanced state of the science of surgery,” and of the “ learned professions.” These terms clearly imply study, education and special preparation. They have no application to persons who, without education, and nothing to *136guide them but some pretended inspiration of their own, usurp the name and seek to assume the character of physicians and surgeons. The instruction upon this general subject was safer and more accurate than that requested by the plaintiff. “ The degree of learning, skill and experience ordinarily possessed by the profession,” is a more distinct and less speculative and misleading form of expression than “ the skill and learning possessed by well-educated surgeons.” The instructions requested by the plaintiff were therefore properly refused. The jury could hardly have supposed that the skill required of the defendant was merely the average skill of all practitioners, educated and uneducated, permanent and occasional, regulars and interlopers alike.
One other point remains to be considered. It is a matter of common knowledge that a physician in a small country village does not usually make a specialty of surgery, and, however well informed he may be in the theory of all parts of his profession, he would, generally speaking, be but seldom called upon as a surgeon to perform difficult operations. He would have but few opportunities of observation and practice in that line such as public hospitals or large cities would afford. The defendant was applied to, being the practitioner in a small village, and we think it was correct to rule that “ he was bound to possess that skill only which physicians and surgeons of ordinary ability and skill, practising in similar localities, with opportunities for no larger experience, ordinarily possess; and he was not bound to possess that high degree of art and skill possessed by eminent surgeons practising in large cities, and making a specialty of the practice of surgery.”
At the plaintiff’s request, the court ruled in substance that, if the case was one which the defendant was not qualified to undertake, he should have referred the plaintiff to a more skilful surgeon. The remark of the presiding judge, that the rule as to ordinary skill applied equally to mechanical operations and employments not included within the range of the learned professions was merely an illustration, and could not have misled the jury. Ho wrong was done to the plaintiff in the trial, and the
Exceptions are overruled.