The Court Decides Helling v. Corey 83 Wash. 2d 514. 519 P.zd 981 (1974) Hunter, I. we find this to be a unique case. The testi- In [another case. ] Justice [ Learned ] Hand many of the medical experts is undisputed stated: concerning the standards of the profession (In most cases reasonable prudence is in by the specialty of ophthalmology. . . . The fact common prudence: but strictly it is never Issue is whether the defendants' compli- its measure; a whole calling may have unduly ance with the standard of the profession lagged in the adoption of new and available of ophthalmology, which does not require devices. It never may set its own tests, how- the giving of a routine pressure test to per- ever persuasive be its usages. Courts must in sons under 40 years of age, should insulate the end say which is required; there are pre- then from liability under the facts of this cautions so imperative that even their univer- CASE. . . . sal disregard will not excuse their omission. [The court points to evidence that the Under the facts of this case reasonable incidence of glaucoma in persons under prudence required the timely giving of the me age of 40 was about 1 in 25,000./ How- pressure test to this plaintiff. The precaution ever, that one person, the plaintiff in this of giving this test to detect the incidence of instance, is entitled to the same protection, glaucoma to patients under 40 years of age as afforded persons over 40, essential for is so imperative that irrespective of its disre- timely detection of the evidence of glau- gard by the standards of the ophthalmology coma where it can be arrested to avoid the profession, it is the duty of the courts to say grave and devastating result of this disease. what is required to protect patients under 40 The test is a simple pressure test, relatively from the damaging results of glaucoma. inexpensive. There is no judgment factor We therefore hold, as a matter of law, that molved, and there is no doubt that by giv- the reasonable standard that should have ng the test the evidence of glaucoma can be been followed under the undisputed facts of detected. . .. this case was the timely giving of this simple, justice Holmes stated in Texas & Pac. Ry. harmless pressure test to this plaintiff and " Behymer: that, in failing to do so, the defendants were What usually is done may be evidence of negligent, which proximately resulted in the at ought to be done, but what ought to blindness sustained by the plaintiff for which be dane is fixed by a standard of reasonable the defendants are liable. or not. Prudence, whether it usually is complied with The judgment of the trial court and the decision of the Court of Appeals [are] reversed. ... (continued)