Ft. Smith & W. Ry. Co. v. Hutchinson
| Decision Date | 29 October 1918 |
| Docket Number | 7147. |
| Citation | 175 P. 922,71 Okla. 139,1918 OK 614 |
| Parties | FT. SMITH & W. RY. CO. v. HUTCHINSON. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
A physician in giving evidence as an expert may base his opinion upon his observation and examination of the patient together with a history of the case as given to him, and such opinion will not be rendered inadmissible in evidence because based partly upon statements made to him by the patient with reference to her condition, symptoms, sensations, and feelings when they were made to, and received by him, and were necessary to an examination and proper diagnosis and treatment of the patient's injuries.
Evidence examined, and held sufficient to carry the case to the jury upon the question whether the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
Where the trial court is of the opinion that a verdict is excessive, it may impose upon the plaintiff the alternative of accepting judgment in a reduced amount or of having a new trial granted.
The judgment in this case, as reduced by the trial court held not excessive.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
In action for personal injury, a physician's testimony that from the patient's statements her jump out of a wagon would have been sufficient to produce her miscarriage was not objectionable as invading the jury's province by stating what did in fact cause the miscarriage.
Where injury complained of is of such character as to require skilled and professional men to determine cause and extent thereof, the question is one of science and must necessarily be proved by the testimony of skilled professional persons.
In action for personal injury at crossing, the submission of question whether injury resulted from plaintiff's act in jumping from a wagon was not error, where there was evidence from which jury might have found that she attempted to jump from wagon, though she did not jump clear, but fell over side and had to be helped to ground.
Error from District Court, Okfuskee County; John Caruthers, Judge.
Action by Annie Hutchinson against the Ft. Smith & Western Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, motion for new trial overruled on condition that plaintiff remit one-half of the verdict, which was done, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Warner & Warner, of Ft. Smith, Ark., for plaintiff in error.
Crump, Skinner & Anglin, of Holdenville, and Roy Hockensmith, of Tulsa, for defendant in error.
This is an action to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been received by Annie Hutchinson, resulting from an accident caused by the negligence of the Ft. Smith & Western Railway Company. The injuries in this case arose out of the same accident as in the case of Ft. Smith & Western Railway Co. v. Jones, 163 P. 1110. Plaintiff was riding in the same wagon with plaintiff in that case, and the negligence of the defendant is established by that decision.
This leaves for consideration the question whether the injuries alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff were actually caused by the negligence of defendant. The injury which plaintiff alleges she suffered was a miscarriage, and in support of this allegation she offered the testimony of her attending physician, Dr. H. C. Pitchford, who testified as to the examination made by him, the condition of the plaintiff at the time and the manner of treatment, and to the fact of the miscarriage, after which the following question was propounded to him:
"From what you know about the woman here, and being her family doctor, what she told you about the history of her case, what you learned when you were called in on the third day when she was having hemorrhages and from the treatment you gave her up and until the time of the miscarriage, what in your judgment produced the miscarriage?"
Objection was made to the question upon the grounds of incompetency, irrelevancy, and immateriality, and upon the further ground that "the hypothesis upon which the question was based was things told him." The objection was overruled, whereupon the witness answered as follows:
"Well, my opinion would be, from what she said, that a jump out of a wagon would have been sufficient to produce it."
In support of the argument that permitting the witness to answer this question was error, it is urged that the medical expert was permitted, to testify as to the cause of the miscarriage basing his opinion upon a history of the case as related to him by the plaintiff. The witness did not say that a jump out of the wagon produced the injury, but that it would have been sufficient to do so, and it cannot be said that the answer invaded the province of the jury by stating what did in fact cause the injury complained of. That it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial