McKinney v. Grand St., P.P. & F.R. Co.

Decision Date08 February 1887
Citation10 N.E. 544,104 N.Y. 352
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesMcKINNEY v. GRAND STREET, P. P. & F. R. CO.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Samuel D. Morris, for appellant.

Anthony Barrett, for respondent.

RUGER, C. J.

The defendant called as a witness one Chapman, a physician, and proposed to prove by him the injuries claimed to have been suffered by the plaintiff in consequence of the collision in question, as learned by him upon a personal examination of the plaintiff when visiting her as a patient. Upon a previous trial of this action this same witness had been called by the plaintiff, and had testified fully in her behalf as to all of the facts bearing upon her physical condition, as affected by the accident on the defendant's railroad, learned by him in his attendance upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff, on the present trial, objected to the proposed evidence upon the ground that the information acquired by a physician while attending a patient was privileged, and could not, therefore, be admitted against the plaintiff without her consent. This objection was sustained, the evidence excluded, and the defendant excepted.

We think this evidence was competent, and its exclusion was error. Such evidence is made incompetent at the option of the patient only, and in case she elects at any time to remove the seal from the lips of the witness the evidence may properly be received. The intent of the statute, in making such information privileged, is to inspire confidence between patient and physician, to enable the latter to prescribe for and advise the former most advantageously, and remove from the patient's mind any fear that she may be exposed to civil or criminal prosecution, or shame and disgrace, by reason of any disclosures thus made. Therefore the statute provides that the information acquired by a physician while attending a patient in his professional capacity shall not be disclosed, unless the patient expressly waives its prohibition. Sections 834, 836, Code Civil Proc.

It is claimed by the appellant that the ban of secrecy having once been removed by the patient, and the information having lawfully been made public, the right to object further thereto has not been conferred. There seems much reason in this claim. The patient cannot use this privilege both as a sword and a shield,-to waive when it inures to her advantage, and wield when it does not. After its publication, no further injury can be inflicted upon the rights and interests which the statute was intended to protect, and there is no further reason for its enforcement. The nature of the information is of such a character that, when it is once divulged in legal proceedings, it cannot be again...

To continue reading

Request your trial
66 cases
  • Dahlquist v. Denver & R.G.R. Co.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 4 d6 Maio d6 1918
    ... ... Com. Bench 237; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v ... Adams , 25 Ind.App. 164, 56 N.E. 101; ... Law of Evid ... section 3705a; 40 Cyc. pp. 2399, 2400; City of Tulsa v ... Wicker , 42 Okla. 539, 141 P. 963; McKinney v. Grand ... Street R. Co. , 104 N.Y. 352, 10 N.E. 544; ... ...
  • Harrison v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 7 d2 Outubro d2 1975
    ...42 N.W. 1063; State v. Tall, 43 Minn. 273, 45 N.W. 449; Hunt v. Blackburn, 128 U.S. 464, 9 S.Ct. 125, 32 L.Ed. 488; McKinney v. Railroad Co., 104 N.Y. 352, 10 N.E. 544. But the testimony of the client or patient as to the communication which will constitute a waiver of the privilege so as t......
  • People v. Fisher
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 30 d3 Junho d3 1993
    ...the physician and his patient and is for the protection of the latter."17 Justice Levin was contrasting McKinney v. Grand Street PP & FR Co, 104 N.Y. 352, 10 N.E. 544 (1887), which held that once the information was communicated at trial and no objection was raised, there was no reason to e......
  • People v. Hamacher, Docket No. 81202
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 30 d4 Março d4 1989
    ...privilege. The Court disagreed with the rationale of the later decision of the New York Court of Appeals, McKinney v. Grand Street, P.P. & F.R. Co., 104 N.Y. 352, 10 N.E. 544 (1887). In McKinney, the court said that where there is a failure to object at a trial and the confidential communic......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT