=Degree of Care and Skill a Mixed Question of Law and Fact.=—What constitutes reasonable care and skill is a mixed question of law and fact, like any other question of negligence. Where the evidence is undisputed and no conflicting inferences can be drawn from the facts presented, it is the duty of the Court to determine whether or not there is sufficient proof of want of ordinary care and skill to be submitted to the jury. Where, however, the evidence is conflicting on that point, or the inferences to be drawn from the facts established might be differently drawn by different men having the same opportunity for observation, and the same circumstances before them, it is for the jury to say whether or not the defendant has exercised reasonable care and skill, guided by proper directions from the Court as to the measure of skill required. This involves the question as to how far the practitioner is bound to be familiar with the methods, appliances, drugs, and methods of treatment of his profession in general.[200] _Experimentation Not Permissible._—Experimentation, whether upon charity patients or pay patients, is equally prohibited by well-settled rules of law. In other words, a departure from known methods of treatment for the purpose of or by way of trying unknown remedies, or operations not usually adopted by the profession, if an unfortunate result occurs, renders the defendant liable (McNevins _v._ Lowe, 40 Ill., 209). MEASURE OF DAMAGES. The measure of damages in cases of malpractice may vary with the kind of malpractice. In the case of wilful malpractice, the element of gross negligence justifies punitive or retaliatory damages, in those States where any such damages are allowed. That is, damages which will not only compensate for the injuries inflicted, but which will, by punishing the wrong done, tend to repress similar acts in the future. The tendency of the courts and of legal authority of the present time is, however, to limit as often as possible the cases in which punitive damages are allowed, upon the theory that if a grossly negligent act is committed it will require criminal prosecution, and that the strong arm of the State should be invoked to punish the wrong, rather than to line the pocket of the injured person. On the other hand, in cases of malpractice, damages for want of ordinary care and skill are recompensed as in any other cases of negligence. They may include loss of time of the patient, inability to earn his living, such sum as the jury thinks is reasonable to be given as a compensation for the extra pain and suffering, and, where the injury is permanent, such further sum as will indemnify the patient for the injury or deformity which he may suffer on account of the defendant’s neglect. Citation of authority upon this question of damages is almost unnecessary.[201]