Crowley v. Appleton
| Decision Date | 28 November 1888 |
| Citation | 148 Mass. 98,18 N.E. 675 |
| Parties | CROWLEY v. APPLETON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
H.F. Hurlbut and S.A. Fuller, for plaintiff.
H.P Moulton, for defendant.
It was an important inquiry in the case at bar whether the plaintiff knew that he was liable to epileptic fits, and medical experts had been permitted to testify that unconsciousness on the part of the subject of such attacks that he had had them was one of their ordinary symptoms. The experts had also testified that they had made an examination with a view of ascertaining whether plaintiff would be likely understand that he had these fits on the fact being communicated to him. The plaintiff's counsel then desired to put the question "From your examination, what do you say as to whether he is a man who could be convinced that he had epilepsy?" This question was excluded by the court, and to this the plaintiff excepted. Assuming that the answer would have been favorable to the plaintiff's contention, this question was properly excluded. The witnesses were allowed apparently to testify fully as to all the characteristics and symptoms of the disease to the extent to which the plaintiff was affected by it, and to any circumstances showing his condition developed by their examination. To put the question whether he would be likely to understand that he had epilepsy was to submit to the experts whether, so far as their examination went, the plaintiff's assertion that he did not know that he had epilepsy was likely to be true. The question whether such was the fact was for the jury, in the decision of which, doubtless, they could be largely aided by the testimony of experts as to the characteristics of the disease and its effect on the patient, but which they must decide for themselves. It should be observed that it does not appear what the answer of the witnesses on this point would have been, or what the plaintiff offered to prove thereby, which was excluded by the court. The point that it is necessary that a bill of exceptions should show this has been so often determined that it hardly requires the citation of authorities to sustain it. Warren v. Water Co., 143 Mass. 155-164, 9 N.E. 527.
In addition to other rulings not recited in the bill of exceptions, the court instructed the jury that it was necessary for the plaintiff to show that he was subject to fits; that he did not know this;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamilton v. Standard Oil Co. of Indiana
...of the necessary allegation that the master knew or by the exercise of ordinary care could have known of such ignorance. Crowley v. Appleton, 148 Mass. 98; Coal Co. v. Moody, 68 So. 274. (c) The fact that the servant alleged a physical disability did not change the rule, in the absence of a......
-
Hamilton v. Standard Oil Co.
...of the necessary allegation that the master knew or by the exercise of ordinary care could have known of such ignorance. Crowley v. Appleton, 148 Mass. 98; Tennessee Coal Co. v. Moody, 68 So. (Ala.) 274. (c) The fact that the servant alleged a physical disability did not change the rule, in......
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Wilson
...of his servant to do the work required to warn and instruct him if there is danger incident to the doing of the work. Crowley v. Appleton, 148 Mass. 98, 18 N.E. 675. Labatt on Master & Servant it is said: "In cases where there is specific evidence tending to show that the master having know......
-
Weinstein v. Miller
...made of the contents of the letter the defendant under the well settled rule fails to show that he has been prejudiced. Crowley v. Appleton, 148 Mass. 98, 18 N. E. 675;Smethurst v. Barton Square Church, 148 Mass. 261, 19 N. E. 387,2 L. R. A. 605, 12 Am. St. Rep. 550;Farnum v. Pitcher, 151 M......