Nebonne v. Concord R. R.
| Decision Date | 26 July 1895 |
| Citation | 44 A. 521,68 N.H. 296 |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
| Parties | NEBONNE v. CONCORD R. R. |
Exceptions from Merrimack county.
Action on the case for personal injuries by Jacob Nebonne against the Concord Railroad. Verdict for plaintiff. Defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.
The plaintiff was run over by one of the defendants' cars, and in consequence of the accident it became necessary to amputate some of the toes on his left foot. The amputated parts, preserved in spirits in a glass jar, were exhibited to the jury, and the defendants excepted. The plaintiff also exhibited his naked foot to the jury. The plaintiff's left leg had been from his birth a little shorter than the other. His attending physician was allowed to testify, subject to exception, that the damage resulting from the removal of the toes from the left foot would be greater than it would be if the leg had been a perfect one, on account of increased inconvenience and irritation experienced in walking.
Albin & Martin and Frank N. Parsons, for plaintiff.
Frank S. Streeter, for defendants.
The exhibition of the amputated toes to the jury may have been competent evidence of the nature of the accident and the extent of the plaintiff's injuries. The case does not show that the evidence was incompetent. If the offer to exhibit the toes was not made for the purpose of proving some disputed fact material to the issue, the exhibition should not have been allowed. Railroad Co. v. Pearson, 97 Ala. 211, 12 South. 176. The physician was properly allowed to testify that the plaintiff's injury was enhanced by reason of a natural defect in his leg, and to state the reasons for that opinion. The fact that that was one of the points in issue did not render the evidence incompetent. Gault v. Railroad Co., 63 N.H. 356. The subject of inquiry was one upon which a physician, from his peculiar study and practice, is presumed to have more accurate knowledge than men in general. Page v. Parker, 40 N.H. 47; Jones v. Tucker, 41 N.H. 546: Exceptions overruled.
CHASE, WALLACE, and PARSONS, JJ., did not sit. The others concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harper v. Bolton
...from the plaintiff's skull, where there was a controversy as to the character of the injury to the head In the case of Nebonne v. Concord R. R., 68 N.H. 296, 44 A. 521, the toes of the plaintiff necessarily amputated in consequence of an accident were exhibited to a jury, over the objection......
-
A. C. Blanchard v. John A. Cross
... ... Ev., § 2377; Goddard v. Enzler, 222 ... Ill. 462, 78 N.E. 805; Van Wycklyn v ... Brooklyn, 118 N.Y. 424, 24 N.E. 179; ... Nebonne v. Concord R. R., 68 N.H. 296, 44 ... A. 521; Poole v. Dean, 152 Mass. 589, 26 ... N.E. 406; Littlejohn v. Shaw, 159 N.Y. 188, ... 53 N.E. 810; ... ...
-
Shawnee Gas & Elec. Co. v. Hunt
...102 Wis. 196, 78 N.W. 446, 778; Selleck v. Janesville, 100 Wis. 157, 75 N.W. 975, 41 L.R.A. 563, 69 Am. St. Rep. 906; Nebonne v. Concord Railroad, 68 N.H. 296, 44 A. 521; Gault v. Concord Railroad, 63 N.H. 356; Poole v. Dean, 152 Mass. 589, 26 N.E. 406; Snow v. Boston & Maine R. Co., 65 Me.......
-
Shawnee Gas & Elec. Co. v. Hunt
...Wis. 197, 78 N.W. 446, 778; Selleck v. Janesville, 100 Wis. 157, 75 N.W. 975, 41 L. R. A. 563, 69 Am. St. Rep. 906; Nebonne v. Concord Railroad, 68 N.H. 296, 44 A. 521; Gault v. Concord Railroad, 63 N.H. 356; Poole Dean, 152 Mass. 589, 26 N.E. 406; Snow v. Boston & Maine R. Co., 65 Me. 230;......