Coghill v. Quincy, O. & K. C. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 December 1918
• Docket Number: No. 12342.,12342.
• Citation: 206 S.W. 912
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: COGHILL v. QUINCY, CO. & K. C. RY. CO.

206 S.W. 912

COGHILL v. QUINCY, CO. & K. C. RY. CO.

No. 12342.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 2, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Adair County; A. Doneghy, Special Judge.

"Not to be officially published "

Action by Ernest A. Coghill against the Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City Railway Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Cooley & Murrell, of Kirksville, for appellant.

J. G. Trimble, of Kansas City, and Campbell & Ellison, of Kirksville, for respondent.

ELLISON, P. J.

Plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant's trains, and received an injury, for which he recovered judgment in the circuit court. There was evidence tending to show that defendant's train stopped at an unusual place by reason of the engine becoming uncoupled. Plaintiff arose and stood between the seats. The engine came back against the train with such violence as to throw him down against a seat, and thence onto the floor of the aisle, whereby he suffered severe injuries. The record seems to leave no doubt of the violence of the collision and the negligence of the defendant. No member of the crew was offered as a witness in its behalf. Its effort now is directed against the ruling of the court during the trial.

The greater number of complaints now made against the action of the court were either not objected to at all, or else the objection was improperly made. The first objection related to a question as to what effect the collision had on a passenger Mrs. Cookson. That question was not answered, but she was permitted to state the character of the collision as to whether it was violent. Then she was asked what effect it had on her, and no objection was made until she answered, and then the court struck it out.

The second objection was that the court permitted plaintiff to state the injury affected his bowels and limbs. This was a proper question. Besides no objection was made.

Plaintiff introduced Dr. Parrish, and objection is made to parts of his testimony. This plaintiff was shown to be a heavy and fleshy man. It was not error, in the circumstances, to ask the way in which such an injury, happening in the peculiar way it did, would affect a man of that kind.

The chief objection made to the testimony of this physician was addressed to other parts of his testimony; that is, that part which mainly detailed plaintiff's injuries. It is urged that this part of the testimony was, at least in some substantial degree, made up of what plaintiff told the doctor, and therefore it was hearsay and inadmissible. It is a familiar rule that, where a physician is treating a patient, inquiry of such patient is a necessity to intelligent treatment. The wholly unreasonable supposition that the patient, in such circumstances, would give him false information, relieves the communication from the objection ordinarily attaching to hearsay evidence. But it Is said that, if the attendance of the physician is for the purpose of preparing himself as a witness in a case then pending, or expecting to arise, different considerations enter, for, in that instance, there will stand a temptation to falsity, or at least magnify, the true condition....