Marshall v. Brown

• Decision Date: 27 February 1883
• Citation: 15 N.W. 55,50 Mich. 148
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: MARSHALL v. BROWN.

15 N.W. 55

50 Mich. 148

MARSHALL v. BROWN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 27, 1883

It is not a valid objection to the testimony of a medical expert that he has but little knowledge on the subject upon which he is examined except that derived from books, as he is entitled to speak from the accepted facts of medical science.

It is not proper, on cross-examination, to ask a medical expert if he is acquainted with a certain book, and, calling his attention to a certain paragraph, ask a question in the language of the book, and thus indirectly introduce such passage in evidence.

Error to Kent.

J.W. & O.C. Ransom, for plaintiff.

Hughes O'Brien & Smiley, for defendant and appellant.

COOLEY J.

This case comes before us for the second time; the first verdict having been set aside on exceptions and a new trial ordered. See 47 Mich. 576; [S.C. 11 N.W. 392.] On the second trial the plaintiff again recovered. The action is for a negligent injury. The defendant is a druggist of the city of Grand Rapids. The plaintiff called for Epsom salts at his store and a clerk delivered instead suphate of zinc, from the taking of which before she discovered the error, the plaintiff claims to have been seriously and permanently injured. To show the effects of sulphate of zinc on the system experts were called, but they seem to have very little knowledge on the subject beyond that derived from books. Several exceptions were taken to their evidence, which we do not think well founded. They were entitled to speak, as they did from the accepted fact of medical science.

One error occurred, however, which it is impossible to overlook. It was decided in People v. Hall, 48 Mich. 486 [S.C. 12 N.W. 665,] that it was not competent to read professional books to the jury as evidence. The decision had not been made when this case was tried the second time; if it had been the error now complained of would, probably, not have been committed.

On the cross-examination of Dr. Wood, a witness for the defendant he was asked if he was acquainted with a certain book. He replied that he had heard of it but had not read it. He was then asked whether it was considered good authority, and he said it was. He was then requested to read a certain paragraph during the recess of the court. When the court convened again, he was recalled and counsel reading from the book the paragraph to which his attention had been called, asked him...