Johnson v. McKee
| Decision Date | 15 July 1873 |
| Citation | 27 Mich. 471 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | William H. Johnson v. Hugh McKee |
Heard July 11, 1873
Error to Kalamazoo Circuit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
May & Buck, for plaintiff in error.
Edwards & Sherwood, for defendant in error.
McKee sued Johnson for an assault and battery, and recovered judgment against him, which is brought up on writ of error. The numerous assignments of error were classified on the argument under a few heads, and may be considered as substantially confined to those.
The battery consisted in striking McKee with a chair, whereby certain injuries were inflicted on his face and head, and in consequence of which he was seriously, and, as is claimed permanently affected.
Among other results, there was evidence that he suffered from a urinary difficulty, caused or aggravated by the blow. It was claimed this injury was not within the terms of the declaration, and could not be shown without express averment.
If the evidence showed any such resulting injury, it showed it to have been as closely connected with the blow as any of the other evil consequences. It was a sickness produced by it in the same way as the swelling and soreness in the head and eyes, and the other grievances about which no question was made on the trial. The declaration charges sickness and pain to have been among the sufferings caused by means of the assault, and we do not think the rules of pleading require any more specific description than was given. We need not inquire how far it was requisite to go in declaring for consequences not necessarily following such an injury, because these consequences are very clearly set forth. When the defendant was informed that damages were sought for sickness and disorder, and their attendant expenses, as well as for wounds and bruises, he was bound to expect evidence of any sickness the origin or aggravation of which could be traced to the act complained of.
A number of errors are alleged upon the reception of testimony showing the statements by plaintiff at various times concerning his pains and bodily sufferings. These are objected to as hearsay statements, and as declarations in his own favor.
So far as they were not narrations of past, as well as present, sufferings, it has been well settled that such statements of present feelings are facts which furnish the best, and often the only evidence of such physical conditions as are not open to discovery by the sight or other senses of witnesses.--Hyatt v. Adams, 16 Mich. 180. We have been unable to find in the record any question allowed by the court, asking for any other statements. There is one answer by a witness which might possibly be regarded as referring to past illness and sufferings, but the question to which exception was taken did not call for it, and no motion was made to strike out the reply. The court committed no error, therefore, whether the answer was or was not open to the construction complained of.
The physician who dressed the wound having been called by plaintiff to describe it, was cross-examined, not only as to what then took place, but also as to his subsequent attendance and treatment, and as to the plaintiff's general condition. He was allowed to testify that plaintiff was at no time unconscious or delirious. He was then asked further: "What appeared to be the condition of his mind as to clearness and sprightliness during the time you attended upon him?" This being objected to, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Meeboer
...past conduct and not contemporaneous actions or utterances associated with the description of present pain and suffering. See Johnson v. McKee, 27 Mich. 471 (1873). Hearsay statements [439 Mich. 340] made to medical care providers regarding present pain and suffering were admissible, unless......
-
Coates v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Corp.
...The giving of a prejudicial and erroneous instruction in favor of a party complaining will not operate to reverse the case. In Johnson v. McKee, 27 Mich. 471, it was held where there was no evidence tending to show justification of an assault, no charge should be given on the subject, but, ......
-
Croco v. Oregon Short-Line R. Co.
...have offspring, evidence of that fact was admissible, though the declaration did not specifically designate that consequence." In Johnson v. McKee, 27 Mich. 471, the said: "The battery consisted in striking McKee with a chair whereby certain injuries were inflicted on his face and head, and......
-
Fleddermann v. St. Louis Transit Company
...spine bruised and sprained, and that those injuries were permanent, lasting and incurable. The court said the rule prescribed in Johnson v. McKee (27 Mich. 471), did not averment of all the physical injuries sustained by a defendant's wrong, or which might have resulted from or have been ag......