Krook v. Blomberg.
| Citation | 59 A.2d 482 |
| Decision Date | 01 June 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 3732.,3732. |
| Parties | KROOK v. BLOMBERG. |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Rockingham County; Leahy, Judge.
Action by Alice Krook, by her father and next friend, Joseph Krook, against Adolph Blomberg, for personal injuries. Defendant's motion that the plaintiff be examined by a licensed physician engaged by defendant was granted, and the plaintiff brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
Case, for personal injuries to plaintiff's minor child. Defendant's motion that the plaintiff be examined by a licensed physician engaged by the defendant for the purpose of determining the nature and extent of her injuries prior to trial was granted by the court after hearing. The plaintiff objected to an examination by this physician claiming that he had a ‘personal dislike for plaintiff's counsel’ and would be prejudiced. The plaintiff's bill of exceptions, allowed by Leahy, J., is based on three alleged errors: (1) The physical examination is unconstitutional, (2) it cannot be ordered in the absence of a statute specifically so providing and (3) plaintiff's offer to be examined by another physician to be selected by the defendant, deprives the court of the power to order an examination by the physician claimed to be unfriendly by the plaintiff.
William H. Sleeper, of Exeter, and Robert Shaw, of Nashau, for plaintiff.
Sheehan, Phinney & Bass (Wm. L. Phinney orally), of Manchester, for defendant.
As early as 1860 and quite consistently since that time it has been the practice in this state ‘* * * that the court may make such orders in each case, from time to time, as justice may require.’ Deming v. Foster, 42 N.H. 165, 179; LaCoss v. Lebanon, 78 N.H. 413, 417, 101 A. 364; Dame v. Seaward, N.H., 58 A.2d 753, (decided May 4, 1948). The rationale of our practice has been well expressed in Taylor v. Thomas, 77 N.H. 410, 411, 92 A. 740, 741: The use of depositions, discovery, physical examinations and pre-trial procedure (Superior Court rule 48, 93 N.H.Appendix) are customary examples of ‘rational means' to discover some of the truth before trial. They enable court, counsel and the parties to have a more intelligent grasp of the litigated issues and the modern trend is to encourage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wasmund v. Nunamaker
...a refusal of the motion. Relators contend that Sharff v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.2d 508, 282 P.2d 896, 64 A.L.R.2d 494, and Krook v. Blomberg, 95 N.H. 170, 59 A.2d 482, are directly in point in support of their contentions. In the Krook case plaintiff claimed that the physician had a persona......
-
McDuffey v. Boston & M.R.R.
...471, 92 A.2d 161; Town of New Castle v. Rand, 101 N.H. 201, 136 A.2d 914. In encouraging use of discovery and depositions (Krook v. Blomberg, 95 N.H. 170, 59 A.2d 482), it has been pointed out that it operates with desirable flexibility under the discretionary control of the Presiding Justi......
-
Kusky v. Laderbush
...v. Boston & M. Railroad, 89 N.H. 277, 279, 197 A. 822; Lefebvre v. Somersworth Shoe Co., 93 N.H. 354, 356, 41 A.2d 924; Krook v. Blomberg, 95 N.H. 170, 59 A.2d 482; Staagaard v. Public Service Co., 96 N.H. 17, 69 A.2d We agree that '[t]he quiet of the grave, the repose of the dead, are not ......
-
Drake v. Bowles
...agreement but the inherent power of the court to order an ordinary physical examination is settled in this jurisdiction. Krook v. Blomberg, 95 N.H. 170, 59 A.2d 482; 8 Wig.Ev. (3rd ed.) § 2220 B (Supp.). The conditions under which the examination is to be made as well as its nature, extent ......