Parrish v. Point

• Decision Date: 20 November 1907
• Citation: 59 S.E. 348,146 N.C. 125
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: PARRISH. v. HIGH POINT, R., A. & S. RY. CO.

59 S.E. 348

146 N.C. 125

PARRISH.

v.HIGH POINT, R., A. & S. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 20, 1907.

Evidence—Opinion—Expert—Competency.

In an action for personal injuries a question was asked a medical expert that, if the jury found from the evidence that plaintiff was injured by falling against the arm of a seat, and struck his back over the region of the kid ney, and it then gave him great pain, followed by faintness or nausea, and the next morning and several times since he passed bloody urine, as late as the 5th day of this month, that his nervous system was affected, and when he made a misstep or had a sudden jar he had acute pain in the region of the kidney, followed by passing bloody urine, "what, in your opinion is the cause of his being affected in this way?" Held, that the question was competent; the witness not being called upon to express an opinion as to the existence of disputed facts, but merely as to the result of certain assumed facts which the jury might find from the evidence.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 20, Evidence, §§ 2369-2374.]

Appeal from Superior Court, Randolph County; Justice, Judge.

Action by Melvin W. Parrish against the High Point, Randleman, Asheboro & Southern Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This action was brought to recover damages for injuries to the plaintiff by defendant's negligence. The plaintiff had taken passage on defendant's train from Greensboro to Asheboro on July 23, 1906. He went to get some medicine for his wife and a glass of water, and while returning to his seat he received a severe shock, which was caused by the backing of the engine against the cars. He was hurled forward, and then backward, falling against the arm of a seat, which injured his back, hips, and spinal column. There was evidence tending to show the extent of his injuries. In order to further prove the extent and nature of the injuries to himself, the plaintiff introduced Dr. Lewis, admitted to be a medical expert, who testified: "I have been a physician nearly 20 years. I examined the plaintiff on the 7th and 8th of July, 1907. There was nothing the matter with his lungs, but his heart beat a little fast. I found trouble—a swelling, puffiness, and tenderness—over his right kidney." The witness was then asked the following question: "If the jury find the facts to be from the evidence that the plaintiff was injured by falling back against the arm of a seat in the train, and struck his back over the region of the kidney, and at the time it gave him great pain, followed by faintness or nausea, and that the second morning thereafter he passed urine mixed with blood, and that several times since he has passed bloody urine, as late as the 5th day of this month, that his nervous system was affected, and when he makes a misstep, or has a sudden jar, he has acute pain in the region of the kidney, followed by passing bloody urine, what, in your opinion is the cause of his being affected in this way?" The witness answered: "In my opinion the kidney was dislocated by the fall, and the dislocation is permanent, and the plaintiff will be disabled for life, unless he has the kidney removed by an operation." The question and answer were objected to by defendant in apt time. The objections were overruled, and defendant excepted. The exception as above stated wasthe only one in the...