Hamilan Corporation v. O'NEILL, 15024.

• Decision Date: 03 December 1959
• Docket Number: No. 15024.,15024.
• Citation: 273 F.2d 89,106 US App. DC 354
• Parties: HAMILAN CORPORATION, t/a Manger-Hamilton Hotel, Appellant, v. Jeanni M. O'NEILL, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

106 US App. DC 354, 273 F.2d 89 (1959)

HAMILAN CORPORATION, t/a Manger-Hamilton Hotel, Appellant, v. Jeanni M. O'NEILL, Appellee.

No. 15024.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued November 6, 1959.

Decided December 3, 1959.

Mr. Dyer Justice Taylor, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. John L. Laskey, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Leo N. McGuire, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Joseph D. Bulman and Sidney M. Goldstein, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, BASTIAN and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment in the District Court for personal injuries suffered by appellee (plaintiff). The facts surrounding the initial injury in question are not in dispute. Liability is admitted, and the only question submitted to the jury was that of damages.

Appellee was injured, while she was a patron in appellant's (defendant's) hotel, by drinking from a glass in which particles of glass were mixed with crushed ice, causing bleeding of her mouth and making her throat painful. Later the same day, stomach pains developed.

Two or three days after the occurrence, appellee was examined by her family physician, a specialist in internal medicine, who prescribed treatment. Shortly thereafter, appellee was hospitalized because of the continuance of the stomach pains and the vomiting of blood. A gastroenterologist examined appellee and found her to be suffering from irritation of the stomach lining, a spasm at the outlet of the stomach, and tenderness in the abdomen. Shortly after her hospital stay, she passed a piece of glass.

From the time of her injury in 1954 until the trial of this case in 1959, appellee suffered from abdominal pains on the average of once or twice a week, and on occasion, vomited blood and suffered rectal bleeding. She was seen by her family physician some seventy-five times. Her doctors, including a neurologist, testified that as a result of her physical injuries appellant suffered emotional distress, became highly nervous and apprehensive, and suffered consequential injuries.

Appellee presented two physicians, Dr. Connolly (her family physician) and Dr. Korengold (the neurologist), who testified that it was their opinion that the emotional disturbance present in appellee was the probable consequence of the initial impact. In addition, Dr. Connolly was of the opinion that glass was still present in appellee's abdomen at the time of the trial of the case in 1959, and that she probably had a condition of granuloma in her stomach and the last few feet of her bowel.

Appellant presented medical testimony to the contrary. One doctor for appellant testified that he examined appellee from "stem to stern" and found no evidence of any organic abnormality, no areas of bleeding, nor areas of abrasion or perforation. He stated that he found no granuloma.

Appellant, citing Perry v. Capital Transit Co., 1929, 59 App.D.C. 42, 32 F. 2d 938, argues that there can be no recovery in this jurisdiction for physical injuries resulting from an emotional disturbance caused by an initial negligent bodily impact unless the emotional disturbance and its effects are the natural and probable consequence of the initial impact.

The court charged the jury that a plaintiff may not recover damages for ailments arising merely from emotional or psychological or so-called nervous shock; that, however, if a plaintiff suffers substantial physical injuries which proximately cause secondary physical effects or nervous or emotional or psychological disabilities, she may recover damages for such secondary physical effects or nervous or emotional or psychological disabilities as stem from the original physical injury in an unbroken chain of causation. He then continued:

...