Leonard v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 10 January 1920 |
Citation | 234 Mass. 480,125 N.E. 593 |
Parties | LEONARD v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; W. F. Hall, Judge.
Action by John Leonard against the Boston Elevated Railway Company. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.
John Louis Sheehan, of Boston, for plaintiff.
E. P. & L. Saltonstall, for defendant.
In this action for personal injuries, the contention of the plaintiff was that he was thrown to the ground by the sudden starting of a car from which he was alighting at Kendall Square in Cambridge. The contention of the defendant was that the plaintiff was hit by a Boston-bound car as he was crossing the tracks, about 600 or 700 feet from Kendall Square. An employé of the Cambridge City Hospital (where Leonard was cared for after the accident) was called as a witness by the defendant, and produced the hospital record concerning the plaintiff. The bill of exceptions recites:
This is the only exception before us; and it involves the construction of St. 1912, c. 442, § 2.
The statute is an amendment of St. 1905, c. 330, and requires certain hospitals to keep--
‘records of the treatment of the cases under their care and the medical history of the same.’ Section 1.
Section 2 provides that--
‘Such records * * * shall be admissible as evidence in the courts of the commonwealth so far as such records relate to the treatment and medical history of such cases; but nothing therein contained shall be admissible as evidence which has reference to the question of liability.’
In construing this statute we cannot accept the view of the plaintiff that the hospital record is inadmissible if it may have ‘reference to the question of liability,’ even though it directly relates only to the ‘treatment and medical history of the case.’ A reasonable interpretation must be given to both these clauses in the statute. Apparently the legislation making this hearsay evidence admissible was enacted primarily to relieve the physicians and nurses of public hospitals from the hardship and inconvenience of attending court as witnesses to fact which ordinarily would be found recorded in the hospital books. It is argued that, under the broad language of the original act (St. 1905, c. 330) making the ‘records of the cases' admissible as evidence ‘as to all matters therein contained,’ plaintiffs in personal injury cases were sometimes confronted at the trial with hearsay statements in hospital records which related solely to the cause of the accident. However that may be, the amendment of 1912 defined what the record should contain, and limited its admissibility as evidence. Under the present statute only such portions are admissible as relate to the treatment and medical...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Bohannon
...of attending court as witnesses to facts which ordinarily would be found recorded in the hospital books." Leonard v. Boston Elevated Ry., 234 Mass. 480, 482, 125 N.E. 593 (1920). The judge, in a hearing on the motion to admit the hospital records, found "that the records themselves are extr......
-
Commonwealth v. Cole
...recorded in the hospital books.” Commonwealth v. Gogan, 389 Mass. 255, 263, 449 N.E.2d 365 (1983), quoting Leonard v. Boston Elevated Ry., 234 Mass. 480, 482, 125 N.E. 593 (1920). See Francis, supra. “More importantly, however, the statute allows admission of the substantive content of hosp......
-
Commonwealth v. Irene
...recorded in the hospital books.” Commonwealth v. Gogan, 389 Mass. 255, 263, 449 N.E.2d 365 (1983), quoting Leonard v. Boston Elevated Ry., 234 Mass. 480, 482, 125 N.E. 593 (1920). As Professor Wigmore described, “amidst the day-to-day details of scores of hospital cases, the physicians and ......
-
Moran v. Sch. Comm. of Littleton
...and there was no request that it be limited to that purpose. Hubbard v. Allyn, 200 Mass. 166, 171, 86 N.E. 356;Leonard v. Boston Elevated Railway, 234 Mass. 480, 483, 125 N.E. 593;Curtin v. Benjamin, 305 Mass. 489, 493, 26 N.E.2d 354, 129 A.L.R. 433. We prefer not to dispose of the point in......
-
Overview
...objection at all unless the underlying question is so far off base that it is inadmissible for all purposes, Leonard v. Boston Ry. Co. , 125 N.E. 593, 234 Mass. 480 (1920); Wimer v. Hinkle , 379 S.E.2d 383 (W.Va., 1989). 35 Thomas v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC , 571 S.W.3d 126......
-
Overview
...objection at all unless the underlying question is so far off base that it is inadmissible for all purposes, Leonard v. Boston Ry. Co. , 125 N.E. 593, 234 Mass. 480 (1920); Wimer v. Hinkle , 379 S.E.2d 383 (W.Va., 1989). 16 Benchoff v. Morgan , 394 S.E.2d 19 (S.C. App., 1990). Diversified T......
-
Overview
...objection at all unless the underlying question is so far off base that it is inadmissible for all purposes, Leonard v. Boston Ry. Co. , 125 N.E. 593, 234 Mass. 480 (1920); Wimer v. Hinkle , 379 S.E.2d 383 (W.Va., 1989). Is It Admissible? O-16 32 Benchoff v. Morgan , 394 S.E.2d 19 (S.C. App......
-
Overview
...objection at all unless the underlying question is so far off base that it is inadmissible for all purposes, Leonard v. Boston Ry. Co. , 125 N.E. 593, 234 Mass. 480 (1920); Wimer v. Hinkle , 379 S.E.2d 383 (W.Va., 1989). O-9 Overview If you fail to make an objection to bad evidence, you wai......