Kaplan v. Mashkin Freight Lines, Inc.

Decision Date15 April 1959
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
Parties, 72 A.L.R.2d 926 Alex KAPLAN v. MASHKIN FREIGHT LINES, INC., et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Adrian W. Maher, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was James J. Maher, Bridgeport, for appellants (defendants).

David Goldstein, Bridgeport, with whom were John F. Lyons, So. Norwalk, Arnold J. Bai, Bridgeport, and, on the brief, Robert Fain, Bridgeport, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before DALY, C. J., and BALDWIN, KING, MURPHY and MELLITZ, JJ.

BALDWIN, Associate Justice.

The defendants in this action for negligence have appealed from a judgment entered upon a jury's verdict for the plaintiff. They assign error in the denial of their motion to set the verdict aside, in rulings concerning the use of medical treatises in the direct and cross examination of expert medical witnesses and the argument to the jury, and in the finding. The defendant admitted liability and the case was tried on the issue of damages only.

A summary of the finding, with certain corrections, follows: The plaintiff, who at the time of the accident was fifty-nine years old, claimed to have proved that on July 11, 1953, the defendants negligently caused his truck, which he was driving, to be overturned. His head struck the concrete pavement. He sustained contusions on his head, back, right hip and leg, and an abrasion of the left leg. He suffered a brain concussion and a strain in the right sacroiliac region. In the spring of 1954 he began to show a slight tremor of his right hand which worsened gradually. His condition was diagnosed as Parkinson's disease. This condition was caused by the injury to his head sustained on July 11, 1953. The defendant claimed to have proved that there was no causal relation between this injury and the Parkinson's disease from which the plaintiff was suffering.

The decision in this appeal turns upon the overruling by the trial court of the defendants' objection to the plaintiff's reading of extracts from medical treatises in argument to the jury. For a better understanding of the situation presented by this ruling, we shall first consider certain rulings, assigned as error, concerning the use of the medical treatises in the course of the testimony.

The plaintiff offered Dr. Clifton W. Anderson as an expert medical witness. He testified over the defendants' objection that, in his opinion, a causal relation between the plaintiff's injuries and his condition of Parkinson's disease was reasonably probable. The witness had previously stated that his opinion was based upon authorities which he had read and his own knowledge. The defendants' grounds of objection were, in substance, that the witness' testimony was based upon the opinion of the writers of medical treatises who were not subject to cross-examination and upon their statements, which were not in evidence. The court overruled the objection and an exception was taken. On cross-examination, the defendants offered a medical report made by the witness to the plaintiff on March 12, 1957, in which the doctor stated that he could find no causal relation between the accident and the plaintiff's disability. The report was duly received. On redirect, the witness was permitted, over objection by the defendants, to state in explanation that he had changed his opinion, as contained in his report of March 12, 1957, after he had seen the statements of two eminent neurologists, Dr. Derek E Denny-Brown of Harvard Medical School and Dr. Israel S. Wechsler of Columbia University Medical School. Extracts from Cecil & Loeb, Textbook of Medicine (9th Ed.), page 1564, and Wechsler, Textbook of Clinical Neurology (7th Ed.), which contained the statements, respectively, were offered and marked as exhibits for identification. The court twice cautioned the jury that these extracts were offered in support of the witness' explanation and that their contents were not to be considered independently by the jury to prove a causal relation between the plaintiff's injury and his present condition. On recross-examination, the witness conceded that the medical textbooks had been shown to him only the day before by the plaintiff's counsel. The defendants then moved that the witness' testimony be stricken. The motion was denied and the defendants duly excepted. In defense, the defendants called Dr. Edwin H. Mulford II, a qualified medical expert in the field of neurology. He testified that in his opinion there was no causal relation between the Parkinson's disease of the plaintiff and the injury sustained by him on July 11, 1953. On cross-examination, the plaintiff, after objection and exception taken by the defendants, read to Dr. Mulford the extracts from the medical treatises offered for identification and asked him whether he agreed with the authors. Dr. Mulford conceded that the authors were recognized authorities but stated that he disagreed with them. The plaintiff, during his argument to the jury, was permitted over objection by the defendants to read extracts from the medical texts. The record does not show that the defendants took exception to this ruling.

Upon the direct examination of an expert witness on medical science, extracts from treatises in that science which he states are recognized by his profession as authoritative and which have influenced or tend to confirm his opinion may be used. Eagleston v. Rowley, 9 Cir., 172 F.2d 202, 203; 6 Wigmore, Evidence (3d Ed.) § 1700; see Tompkins v. West, 56 Conn. 478, 485, 16 A. 237; 3 Jones, Evidence (5th Ed.) § 622, n. 9; State v. Nicolosi, 228 La. 65, 69, 81 So.2d 771. In the cross-examination of the expert witness, such extracts may be used by incorporating them in questions to him to test his qualifications and to impeach his testimony. State v. Wade, 96 Conn. 238, 251, 113 A. 458; Ruth v. Fenchel, 21 N.J. 171, 176, 121 A.2d 373, 60 A.L.R.2d 71; 3 Jones, op. cit., p. 1186.

The extracts have been marked for identification, the crucial question is whether the plaintiff could read them in his argument to the jury. No exception to the overruling of the objection to their use for this purpose was required. Zalewski v. Waterbury Mfg. Co., 89 Conn. 46, 50, 92 A. 682. There is no transcript of the argument in the record, and we have no way of knowing precisely what was read. The trial court could have asked the plaintiff to reread the statement to which objection was made and could have directed the stenographer to record it. After their appeal had been filed, there being no transcript of the argument, the defendants, proceeding under Practice Book, § 423 for a correction of the record, could have presented for incorporation in the record on appeal the matter objected to. Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc., § 283; see Avery v. White, 79 Conn. 705, 707, 66 A. 517. We shall assume that the material from the treatises, which was read to the jury in argument was that used in the examination of the expert witnesses and marked as exhibits for identification. 1

We have had occasion to consider the use of treatises in argument to the jury, but never under such circumstances as are present here. In State v. Hoyt, 46 Conn. 330, 337, a majority of a narrowly divided court said that for many years counsel had been permitted in capital cases to read in argument to the jury from treatises on insanity recognized as authoritative by the medical profession. We approved this practice in State v. Wade,supra, 96 Conn. 250, 113 A. 458. The Hoyt case, supra, also indicated that counsel might read from opinions of this court dealing with insanity in capital cases. When that case was tried, the view prevailed that the statute concerning the functions of the court and the jury in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Filippelli v. Saint Mary's Hosp.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • October 13, 2015
    ...trial court to preclude the plaintiff from reading from a document that was not yet a full exhibit; see Kaplan v. Mashkin Freight Lines, Inc.,146 Conn. 327, 334–35, 150 A.2d 602 (1959); and to postpone admitting the article as a full exhibit until after the plaintiff had finished his cross-......
  • Filippelli v. Saint Mary's Hosp.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • April 2, 2013
    ...or any literature he intended to bring to trial. He indicated that there was none.” The defendants cited Kaplan v. Mashkin Freight Lines, Inc., 146 Conn. 327, 150 A.2d 602 (1959), in support of their objection. On May 10, 2011, the court held a hearing regarding the defendants' objection to......
  • City and County of Honolulu v. Bishop Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • July 9, 1965
    ...But this should not be done when the exhibits have not even been admitted in evidence. 21 Cf. Kaplan v. Mashkin Freight Lines, Inc., 146 Conn. 327, 334-35, 150 A.2d 602, 605-606, 72 A.L.R.2d 926. Had defendants' charts been offered in evidence, an objection might have been taken on the grou......
  • Cousins v. Nelson
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • February 22, 2005
    ...and opinion." (Emphasis added.) C. Tait, Connecticut Evidence (3d Ed.2001) § 7.11.2, p. 539; Kaplan v. Mashkin Freight Lines, Inc., 146 Conn. 327, 330-31, 150 A.2d 602 (1959); State v. Wade, 96 Conn. 238, 250-51, 113 A. 458 (1921); see also Harlan v. Norwalk Anesthesiology, P.C., 75 Conn.Ap......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT