Crozier v. Minneapolis Street Railway Company

• Citation: 118 N.W. 256,106 Minn. 77
• Decision Date: 06 November 1908
• Docket Number: 15,785 - (76)
• Parties: IDA CROZIER v. MINNEAPOLIS STREET RAILWAY COMPANY
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

118 N.W. 256

106 Minn. 77

IDA CROZIER v. MINNEAPOLIS STREET RAILWAY COMPANY

Nos. 15,785 - (76)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

November 6, 1908

Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $20,000 for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained while in one of defendant's cars by a collision with another car. The answer admitted defendant's negligence and tendered judgment in the sum of $400 which tender was refused on the ground that the amount was ridiculously inadequate for the injuries sustained. The case was tried before Frederick V Brown, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $9,500. From an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial, it appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Verdict -- Evidence.

In a personal injury action, where the liability of the defendant was admitted, and the only question was as to the extent of the injuries, held, the verdict is sustained by the evidence.

Opinion of Expert.

An expert medical witness may give an opinion as to the cause of a person's physical condition, based upon the assumption that the testimony given at the trial is true.

Opinion of Expert. -- Hypothetical Question.

The trial judge may, in his discretion, allow an expert medical witness to base his opinion upon all the evidence for the plaintiff or for the defendant, provided he has heard the same; but the better practice under ordinary circumstances is to frame a hypothetical question.

Use of Incompetent Evidence.

Hearsay and other incompetent evidence, which was received without objection, has probative value, and may be taken into consideration or included in a hypothetical question.

Foundation of Expert's Opinion.

The opinion of an expert witness cannot be based upon the opinion of another expert.

N. M Thygeson, W. H. Bennett, and D. R. Frost, for appellant.

Ludvig Arctander, for respondent.

OPINION

ELLIOTT, J.

The respondent, Ida Crozier, was a passenger on one of the street cars of the appellant, which collided with another car. She brought this action to recover damages which she claims to have sustained. The answer admitted the negligence of the company and tendered judgment for $400. The plaintiff claims that as the result of the collision she suffered a misplacement of the uterus, the dislocation of the left shoulder, resulting in the paralysis of the deltoid muscle, and is suffering from traumatic neurasthenia. Special damages in the sum of $985.30 were alleged. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $9,500, and the defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for a new trial.

1. The admission of the answer left only the question of the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and the resulting damages to be determined by the jury. The assignments of error question the correctness of certain rulings upon evidence and the refusal of the court to give a certain instruction as requested. It is also contended that the injuries were not so serious and permanent as claimed by the plaintiff, and that the verdict was therefore excessive.

2. We do not intend to take time or space to consider in detail the assignments which relate solely to the alleged errors of the trial court in overruling objections to certain questions asked the expert medical witnesses. They are entirely without merit. The objections in brief are that certain questions did not disclose the facts upon which the opinion was solicited, permitted the witness to invade the province of the jury, to base an opinion upon hearsay and other incompetent evidence and upon the opinions of other experts, or upon declarations as to past conditions, and that there was no evidence of violence to the body of the plaintiff upon which an opinion could properly be based.

The controlling doctrines are well settled. The rule established in this jurisdiction allows an expert medical witness to state his opinion, based on the evidence, as to the cause of the plaintiff's present physical condition. In the recent case of Ahern v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 102 Minn. 435, 440, 113 N.W. 1019, 1020, it was said: "Medical experts called by the plaintiff were permitted, over objection, to give an opinion as to the cause of her physical condition, based upon the assumption that the testimony given on the trial was true. This is urged as error, as an invasion of the province of the jury. The question thus raised is not an open one in this state, for this court has repeatedly held that such opinion evidence is admissible. We adhere to the rule." The case of Briggs v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 52 Minn. 36, 53 N.W. 1019, is limited by Donnelly v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 70 Minn. 278, 73 N.W. 157.

The better practice is to frame a hypothetical question containing a statement of the evidence, which the witness is required to assume as true; but the trial judge may, in his discretion, allow an expert medical witness to base his opinion upon all the evidence for the plaintiff or for the defendant, if he has heard the same. In Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464, the court said: "This form of question is not obnoxious to the objection that it calls on the witness to decide any question of fact, for the purpose of basing the opinion on it. It is, in effect, putting to the witness a hypothetical case, which is...