Kain v. Logan, 41663
| Decision Date | 19 August 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 41663,41663 |
| Parties | Walter KAIN, Appellant, v. Eugene A. LOGAN and 'Jane Doe' Logan his wife et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Neil Hoff, Tacoma, Wash., for appellant.
Davies, Pearson, Anderson & Gadbow, Wayne, J. Davies, Seattle, Wash., for respondents.
Plaintiff, involved in an automobile accident, called his psychiatrist as a witness to his injuries. The trial court sustained as hearsay objections to statements under before the accident by plaintiff's wife to the psychiatrist, a ruling which presents the major question on appeal.
The accident occurred November 17, 1964, when plaintiff, driving North on Pacific Avenue in Tacoma, had to stop his car because of another accident. His car was struck from the rear by defendants' truck. As a result of the accident, plaintiff experienced pain, stiffness and discomfort in the neck, and muscle spasms and aggravation of a pre-existing arthritic condition. He was given physiotherapy treatments and wore a neck brace prescribed by an orthopedic surgeon. The jury returned a verdict of $2,000, and plaintiff appeals the judgment entered thereon, assigning error to the exclusion as hearsay of his former wife's statements made to the psychiatrist during their marriage and prior to the accident.
Dr. Gordon Parrott, a specialist in psychiatry, testified that plaintiff first consulted him in May, 1962, some 30 months before the accident. The psychiatric examination revealed that plaintiff's marital difficulties were producing symptoms of anxiety; that plaintiff was unable to function on his job because he was 'preoccupied with the breaking down of his marriage,' and that he was unable 'to form a good relationship with his older boy.' These symptoms persisted, he noted, and later, showing a growing confidence in his doctor, the patient disclosed symptoms of daydreaming more extensive than would be acceptable as within range of normalcy. The doctor at this point, describing his observations, treatment, examinations and conclusions as to plaintiff prior to the accident, during 1962 and 1963, testified:
I had contact with his wife, and she described him sitting at home for hours in a chair, daydreaming as we call it. There's nothing wrong with daydreaming, but he would sit, and in this sort of daydream state, let's say, and the boys could be raising a ruckus, she would ask him to quiet them down and he would be completely oblivious of her statement.
Obviously expecting that the doctor intended to elaborate and go into detail as to what plaintiff's wife had told him, the court sustained an objection as hearsay to further revelation of the wife's statements.
Between plaintiff's initial visit to Dr. Parrott in May of 1962 and October of 1963, the doctor had concluded before the accident, as a consequence of several psychiatric examinations and observations, that plaintiff had developed 'almost a psychic detachment from what was going on around him.' By October, 1963, the doctor had reached a conclusion that plaintiff had become what is described as a 'borderline schizophrenic' who could 'fall off into a psychotic reaction' and 'if the inner or the external tensions become more than he can bear' the patient, such as plaintiff, 'tends to drop off into a schizophrenic world.' Dr. Parrott said that, in February of 1964, plaintiff was 'going through the divorce action' which, while relieving him of some tensions, did no more than 'replace the one set of stresses by another set of stresses.' Dr. Parrott testified at length concerning plaintiff's emotional and mental condition as it existed prior to the accident and how these conditions, in his opinion, had become aggravated and more severe after it.
We find no basis for admitting this testimony under any of the exceptions to the rules against hearsay. Extrajudicial statements made by the patient's wife to a treating psychiatrist at a time long before the events out of which the action arose are hearsay evidence. Accordingly, statements made by the wife to the doctor in this case prior to the accident, and not in any way characterizing the accident or its consequences, or growing out of it so as to be admissible as a part of the res gestae, must be regarded as hearsay.
These remarks of the former wife do not fall within the recognized exception to the hearsay rule which admits as a part of the case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joyce v. STATE, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
...DOC made no objections during the family's closing argument. Therefore, any error was not preserved for appeal. See Kain v. Logan, 79 Wash.2d 524, 528, 487 P.2d 1292 (1971) (remarks during closing arguments believed to be prejudicial must be brought to the trial court's DOC finally argues t......
-
Joyce v. STATE, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
...DOC made no objections during the family's closing argument. Therefore, any error was not preserved for appeal. See Kain v. Logan, 79 Wash.2d 524, 528, 487 P.2d 1292 (1971) (remarks during closing arguments believed to be prejudicial must be brought to the trial court's DOC finally argues t......
-
Joyce v. State, Dept. of Corrections
...a reversal... must be brought to the trial court's attention and a curative admonition or instruction requested." Kain v. Logan, 79 Wash.2d 524, 528, 487 P.2d 1292 (1971). The Department contends that its continuing objection, established by a motion in limine, was sufficient to meet its ob......
-
State v. Fullen
...may relate the history of his patient's symptoms as given him by his patient in order to show a basis for his opinion. Kain v. Logan, 79 Wash.2d 524, 487 P.2d 1292 (1971); Floyd v. Department of Labor & Indus., 68 Wash.2d 938, 416 P.2d 355 (1966). It is difficult to tell from the record and......