Booren v. McWilliams

• Decision Date: 14 January 1914
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

145 N.W. 410

26 N.D. 558

ANNIE BOOREN v. GEORGE E. MCWILLIAMS

Supreme Court of North Dakota

January 14, 1914

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Towner County for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, Hon. J. F Cowan, J.

Reversed.

P. J McClory and Bangs, Cooley, & Hamilton, for appellant.

At common law there was no immunity granted a physician from testifying fully as to conversations had with his patients but the laws of this state have exempted or prohibited physicians from testifying as to information acquired from his patient while in attendance, and which is necessary to enable the physician to properly prescribe. Rev. Codes 1905 § 7304; Wigmore, Ev. § 2380; Greenl. Ev. 16th ed § 247a.

Upon the question of whether or not the information gained by a physician from his patient while in attendance upon such patient was necessary to enable the physician to prescribe, the court is just as well qualified to pass as is or was the physician, or to consider the nature and character of such information. Madsen v. Utah Light & R. Co. 36 Utah 528, 105 P. 801.

To entitle a party to the privilege extended by our statute, it is necessary that the information be acquired by the physician while he is attending the patient in a professional capacity. Edington v. AEtna L. Ins. Co. 77 N.Y. 564; People v. Austin, 199 N.Y. 446, 93 N.E. 57.

The burden of showing that the evidence sought to be excluded under this statute is privileged is upon the party who seeks to exclude it. Chicago, I. & L. R. Co. v. Gorman, 47 Ind.App. 432, 94 N.E. 730; People v. Koerner, 154 N.Y. 355, 48 N.E. 730; People v. Schuyler, 106 N.Y. 298, 12 N.E. 783; Smits v. State, 145 Wis. 601, 130 N.W. 525; Campau v. North, 39 Mich. 606, 33 Am. Rep. 433; Lincoln v. Detroit, 101 Mich. 245, 59 N.W. 617; Edington v. AEtna L. Ins. Co. supra; Green v. Metropolitan Street R. Co. 171 N.Y. 201, 89 Am. St. Rep. 807, 63 N.E. 958; Griffiths v. Metropolitan Street R. Co. 171 N.Y. 106, 63 N.E. 808, 11 Am. Neg. Rep. 620, 63 A.D. 86, 71 N.Y.S. 406; People v. Austin, supra; Travis v. Haan, 119 A.D. 138, 103 N.Y.S. 973; Dejong v. Erie R. Co. 43 A.D. 427, 60 N.Y.S. 125; Griebel v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co. 68 A.D. 204, 74 N.Y.S. 126; Benjamin v. Tupper Lake, 110 A.D. 426, 97 N.Y.S. 512; Cooley v. Foltz, 85 Mich. 47, 48 N.W. 176; People v. Cole, 113 Mich. 83, 71 N.W. 455; Green v. Terminal R. Asso. 211 Mo. 18, 109 S.W. 715; Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Murray, 55 Kan. 336, 40 P. 646; Smith v. John L. Roper Lumber Co. 147 N.C. 62, 125 Am. St. Rep. 535, 60 S.E. 717, 15 Ann. Cas. 580; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Castle, 97 C. C. A. 124, 172 F. 841; Madsen v. Utah Light & R. Co. 36 Utah 528, 105 P. 799; Collins v. Mack, 31 Ark. 684; Re Bruendl, 102 Wis. 45, 78 N.W. 169; Heuston v. Simpson, 115 Ind. 62, 7 Am. St. Rep. 409, 17 N.E. 261; Pennsylvania Co. v. Marion, 123 Ind. 415, 7 L.R.A. 687, 18 Am. St. Rep. 330, 23 N.E. 973, 3 Am. Neg. Cas. 261; New York & St. L. R. Co. v. Mushrush, 11 Ind.App. 192, 37 N.E. 954, 38 N.E. 871; Penn Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind. 92, 50 Am. Rep. 769; Raymond v. Burlington C. R. & N. R. Co. 65 Iowa 152, 21 N.W. 495, 3 Am. Neg. Cas. 365; Keist v. Chicago G. W. R. Co. 110 Iowa 32, 81 N.W. 181; Battis v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 124 Iowa 623, 100 N.W. 543; Munz v. Salt Lake City R. Co. 25 Utah 220, 70 P. 852, 13 Am. Neg. Rep. 214; May v. Northern P. R. Co. 32 Mont. 522, 70 L.R.A. 111, 81 P. 328, 4 Ann. Cas. 605; Patterson v. Cole, 67 Kan. 441, 73 P. 54, 14 Am. Neg. Rep. 543; McRae v. Erickson, 1 Cal.App. 326, 82 P. 209; Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. v. Cummings, 8 Colo.App. 541, 46 P. 875.

The instruction of the court to the jury that damages could be assessed for mental suffering, and also by reason of the fact that she became pregnant, and that a child was born, was error. Giese v. Shultz, 53 Wis. 462, 10 N.W. 598; Musselman v. Barker, 26 Neb. 737, 42 N.W. 759; Tyler v. Salley, 82 Me. 128, 19 A. 107.

The consent of the woman by deceit or artifice is an essential and necessary element, and must be shown, to establish the fact of seduction. Lee v. Hefley, 21 Ind. 98; Bradshaw v. Jones, 103 Tenn. 331, 76 Am. St. Rep. 655, 52 S.W. 1072; White v. Murtland, 71 Ill. 250, 22 Am. Rep. 100; Marshall v. Taylor, 98 Cal. 55, 35 Am. St. Rep. 144, 32 P. 867; Baird v. Boehner, 72 Iowa 318, 33 N.W. 694; Gover v. Dill, 3 Iowa 337; Brown v. Kingsley, 38 Iowa 220; Parker v. Monteith, 7 Ore. 277; Patterson v. Hayden, 17 Ore. 238, 3 L.R.A. 529, 11 Am. St. Rep. 822, 21 P. 129; Breon v. Henkle, 14 Ore. 494, 13 P. 289.

An instruction that submits to the jury to find whether or not a certain fact exists, when there is no evidence to prove such fact, is misleading and erroneous. Clement v. Boone, 5 Ill.App. 109; American Transp. Co. v. Moore, 5 Mich. 368; State Bank v. Hubbard, 8 Ark. 183.

The burden of proving why she submitted to having sexual intercourse with defendant is, in such cases, upon the plaintiff. The promise of marriage must be the moving cause, to show seduction. Cooper v. State, 90 Ala. 641, 8 So. 821; People v. Wallace, 109 Cal. 611, 42 P. 159; Phillips v. State, 108 Ind. 406, 9 N.E. 345; People v. Hubbard, 92 Mich. 322, 52 N.W. 729.

Questions referring to plaintiff's intimacy with other men are proper in such cases. State v. McKnight, 7 N.D. 450, 75 N.W. 790.

A witness may testify as to the conduct, demeanor, or manner of another. 5 Enc. Ev. 674; M'Kee v. Nelson, 4 Cow. 355, 15 Am. Dec. 384; Beans v. Denny, 141 Iowa 52, 117 N.W. 1091; Lewis v. Mason, 109 Mass. 169; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Sheppard, 85 Ga. 751, 12 S.E. 18.

It is highly proper to examine a party as to statements made out of court inconsistent with her testimony given in the trial. Hall v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 84 Iowa 311, 51 N.W. 150.

There is nothing in this case to show even an implied promise of marriage. Button v. Hibbard, 82 Hun, 289, 64 N.Y. S. R. 80, 31 N.Y.S. 483.

Mere attentions, although exclusive and long continued, are not enough to show a promise of marriage. Walker v. Johnson, 6 Ind.App. 600, 33 N.E. 267, 34 N.E. 100; Espy v. Jones, 37 Ala. 379; Walmsley v. Robinson, 63 Ill. 41, 41 Am. Rep. 111; Burnham v. Cornwell, 16 B. Mon. 284, 63 Am. Dec. 529; Standiford v. Gentry, 32 Mo. 477; Weaver v. Bachert, 2 Pa.St. 80, 44 Am. Dec. 159; Yale v. Curtiss, 151 N.Y. 598, 45 N.E. 1125; Munson v. Hastings, 12 Vt. 346, 36 Am. Dec. 345.

F. T. Cuthbert, A. R. Smythe, L. H. Sennett, and John J. Kehoe, for respondent.

Our statute, § 7304, Revised Codes 1905, no doubt was intended to protect not only the attending physician, but the patient as well, in the same manner and under the same wholesome rule that prevailed under the common law in reference to attorneys and clients. Burgess v. Sims Drug Co. 114 Iowa 275, 54 L.R.A. 364, 89 Am. St. Rep. 359, 86 N.W. 307, 10 Am. Neg. Rep. 42.

The statute should be given a liberal construction, in order that its purposes may be fully accomplished, and not only the physician, but the patient, protected. McRae v. Erickson, 1 Cal.App. 326, 82 P. 209; Edington v. Mutual L. Ins. Co. 67 N.Y. 185; Grattan v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. 80 N.Y. 281, 36 Am. Rep. 617; Munz v. Salt Lake City R. Co. 25 Utah 220, 70 P. 852, 13 Am. Neg. Rep. 214; Madsen v. Utah Light & R. Co. 36 Utah 528, 105 P. 799; State v. Kennedy, 177 Mo. 98, 75 S.W. 987; Thomas v. Byron Twp. 168 Mich. 593, 38 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1186, 134 N.W. 1021, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 686; Patterson v. Cole, 67 Kan. 441, 73 P. 54, 14 Am. Neg. Rep. 543; Burgess v. Sims Drug Co. supra; Battis v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 124 Iowa 623, 100 N.W. 543; Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. v. Cummings, 8 Colo.App. 541, 46 P. 875; Colo. Gen. Stat. § 3649 is § 4824 of 2 Mills' Anno. Stat.

It is true that the burden is on the party seeking to suppress the evidence, to show that it is within the terms of the statute. But the establishing of the relation of physician and patient during the time the physician acquired the information from the patient is sufficient, and gives rise to the presumption that the physician acquired the information to enable him to properly act and prescribe for the patient. Edington v. Mutual L. Ins. Co. 67 N.Y. 185; Grattan v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. 80 N.Y. 281, 36 Am. Rep. 617; Munz v. Salt Lake City R. Co. 25 Utah 220, 70 P. 852, 13 Am. Neg. Rep. 214; Madsen v. Utah Light & R. Co. 36 Utah 528, 105 P. 799; State v. Kennedy, 177 Mo. 98, 75 S.W. 987; Re Redfield, 116 Cal. 637, 48 P. 794; Patterson v. Cole, 67 Kan. 441, 73 P. 54, 14 Am. Neg. Rep. 543; Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. v. Cummings, 8 Colo.App. 541, 46 P. 875; Battis v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 124 Iowa 623, 100 N.W. 543; Thomas v. Byron Twp. 168 Mich. 593, 38 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1136, 134 N.W. 1021, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 686.

The information obtained from the plaintiff by the doctor while he was attending her was and is privileged to the plaintiff. Edington v. Mutual L. Ins. Co. 67 N.Y. 185; Grattan v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. 80 N.Y. 281, 36 Am. Rep. 617; Re Darragh, 52 Hun, 591, 5 N.Y.S. 58; Freel v. Market Street Cable R. Co. 97 Cal. 40, 31 P. 730; McRae v. Erickson, 1 Cal.App. 326, 82 P. 209; Battis v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 124 Iowa 623, 100 N.W. 543; Green v. Nebagamain, 113 Wis. 508, 89 N.W. 520; Patterson v. Cole, 67 Kan. 441, 73 N.W. 54, 14 Am. Neg. Rep. 543; Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. v. Cummings, 8 Colo.App. 541, 46 P. 875; Heuston v. Simpson, 115 Ind. 62, 7 Am. St. Rep. 409, 17 N.E. 261; Pennsylvania Co. v. Marion, 123 Ind. 415, 7 L.R.A. 687, 18 Am. St. Rep. 330, 23 N.E. 973, 3 Am. Neg. Cas. 261; Munz v. Salt Lake City R. Co. 25 Utah 220, 70 P. 852, 13 Am. Neg. Rep. 214.

The plaintiff did not waive her rights under such statute when and because she offered herself as a witness. May v Northern P. R. Co. 32 Mont. 522, 70 L.R.A. 111, 81...