Atlanta Transit System, Inc. v. Biggs, 50090
Decision Date | 13 February 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 3,No. 50090,50090,3 |
Citation | 213 S.E.2d 87,133 Ga.App. 960 |
Parties | ATLANTA TRANSIT SYSTEM, INC. v. Annie L. BIGGS |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In this trial of a personal injury action certain medical records of events which took place over ten years prior to the trial were properly excluded from evidence.
2. It was not reversible error to refuse a charge on future damages in the language requested.
3. Assuming that the hypothetical question was not in proper form, where the medical witness limited his answer to criteria in evidence no reversible error appears.
The plaintiff appellee was a passenger on an Atlanta Transit bus on the morning of September 9, 1970 when she sustained injuries as the result of a fall. According to her testimony, supported by that of other passengers, she was leaving by the front door of the vehicle at the same time a number of school children were entering, creating a crowded condition which blocked the driver's view of the exit. As she was stepping out the driver closed the doors and started the bus; she was caught by the doors and then, when the vehicle stopped after moving a few feet forward, fell onto the street. There was medical evidence that certain ligaments and cartilage were torn, that the trunk of a nerve had been injured and that she had suffered permanent disability; other evidence indicated that her present symptoms have an emotional rather than a physical origin. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Hansell, Post, Brandon & Dorsey, Dent Acree, Atlanta, for appellant.
Rex T. Reeves, R. John Boemanns, Atlanta, for appellee.
1. Error is enumerated on the refusal of the trial court to allow in evidence certain hospital records predating the injury, offered for purposes of impeachment. Four records were offered and one admitted. Two of the others showed hospital visits on entirely unrelated ailments. The fourth referred to a visit on April 23, 1963, for a breast examination. After a question relating to this, the plaintiff was asked whether she recalled telling them back then that she 'had lost about 10 pounds in 6 months, and having chills, fever and night sweats,' to which she replied that she had chills and fever from a kidney infection.
On the six pages of proffered hospital records, this is the only testimony of the plaintiff pertinent to statements, which were shown on the report of April, 1963, as follows: 'Head: 'Hurts all the time.' Eyes: 'Blurring and dizzines in a.m. Ears: 'Infected most of the time.' Cardiac: Often 'stifled. " The remaining material was clearly inadmissible. Cassano v. Pilgreen's, Inc., 117 Ga.App. 260(2), 160 S.E.2d 439. As to that above quoted, it is noted that the witness replied only that she did not recall; that if the notes are interpreted as statements by the plaintiff they were made some seven years before the present injury and eleven years before the trial, the statements were not read to her or, indeed, positively identified. It was established long ago that where contradictory statements are offered for impeachment purpose the mind of the witness should be called to them with as much certainty as possible, and if they are in writing they should either be shown or read to him. Estil v. C & S Bank, 153 Ga. 618, 627, 113 S.E. 552. We recognize that under the authority of McDaniel v. Gangarosa, 126 Ga.App. 666, 191 S.E.2d 578, medical records otherwise inadmissible may on occasion be admitted for purposes of impeachment. In that case the irrelevant portions had been obliterated prior to admission. The offer of the entire hospital record here covering a number of years and of completely unrelated ailments, such as breast examination for cancer, varicose veins, kidney infection, etc., and without calling the witness' attention to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dimambro Northend Associates v. Williams
...testimony, it appears that "[t]here was in fact no answer to the hypothetical question[s] as posed..." Atlanta Transit System v. Biggs, 133 Ga.App. 960, 964, 213 S.E.2d 87 (1975). Instead, the only question which the trial court eventually did allow Mr. Cohen to answer was the one noted abo......
-
Cox v. Cantrell
...in character is itself sufficient to authorize a jury to find that such injuries are permanent. [Cit.]" Atlanta Transit System v. Biggs, 133 Ga.App. 960, 962(2), 213 S.E.2d 87 (1975). Ms. Cantrell was injured on February 28, 1983, and at the time of trial on March 19, 1986, was still disabl......
-
Dual S. Enterprises, Inc. v. Webb, 51565
...factual foundation, this affects the weight, but not the admissibility, of the witness' testimony. Atlanta Transit System v. Biggs, 133 Ga.App. 960, 963, 213 S.E.2d 87; Fuels, Inc. v. Rutland, 123 Ga.App. 23, 179 S.E.2d 290; Freedman v. Housing Authority, 108 Ga.App. 418, 136 S.E.2d 6. Duri......
-
Dennis v. Adcock
...facts upon which the entry was based.' Cassano v. Pilgreen's Inc., 117 Ga.App. 260(2), 160 S.E.2d 439, and see Atlanta Transit System v. Biggs, 133 Ga.App. 960(1), 213 S.E.2d 87. Exactly the same rule applies to any inadmissible testimony contained in the hospital record, including hearsay,......