Pennsylvania Co. v. Files
| Decision Date | 17 December 1901 |
| Citation | 62 N.E. 1047,65 Ohio St. 403 |
| Parties | PENNSYLVANIA CO. v. FILES. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Crawford county.
Action by one Files against the Pennsylvania Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where one who has received a physical injury from the wrongful act of another calls upon a physician, not for the purpose of receiving medical aid and treatment, but for the purpose of enabling the physician to testify, as an expert in a pending or proposed suit, statements made by the party under such circumstances, in regard to his condition, are not admissible in evidence, and, for a stronger reason, like statements made to third persons, not physicians, under similar circumstances, are incompetent.
2. Where prospective damages from an injury are claimed, they should be limited by the court in its charge to such as may be reasonably certain to result from the injury.
E. W Tolerton, for plaintiff in error.
Beer & Monnette and Finley & Gallinger for defendant in error.
The action below was commenced by Files, a passenger on a train of the Lake Erie & Western Railway Company, to recover damages for injuries sustained by him in a collision between the train he was on and a train of the Pennsylvania Company, occurring at a crossing of the two roads, both companies being made defendants. But, as it appeared that the Lake Erie & Western Company was not at fault, the suit was dismissed as to it and, the Pennsylvania Company admitting its liability, a trial was had to the jury on the amount of the damages to be recovered. A verdict for $500 was rendered.
The principal error assigned is on the admission of evidence at the trial. The plaintiff introduced as a witness Dr. Bland who testified as to an examination he had made of the plaintiff before the trial, and as to statements made by the plaintiff at that time, in regard to his suffering from the injury. This was excepted to by the defendant as incompetent, but admitted over its objection. It appeared that the examination was not made for the purpose of treating the plaintiff, but for the purpose of enabling the physician to testify as an expert at the trial. This evidence, we think, was incompetent. It is to be distinguished from evidence of a like character, given by a physician called on for treatment. In such case, what the patient may say to his medical...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drayton v. Jiffee Chemical Corporation
...The prognostication of future earnings must be based on "reasonable certainty" and not mere possibilities, Pennsylvania Co. v. Files, 65 Ohio St. 403, 62 N.E. 1047 (1901). Johnson v. English, 5 Ohio App.2d 109, 214 N.E. 2d 254 (1966); Powell v. Montgomery, 27 Ohio App.2d 112, 116, 272 N.E.2......
-
State v. Boston
...patient's statements to him concerning the patient's " * * * condition and how * * * [the patient] suffers * * *." Penn Co. v. Files (1901), 65 Ohio St. 403, 406, 62 N.E. 1047. However, a doctor could not testify about a patient's statements made to enable the doctor to testify as an expert......
-
The City Of East Liverpool v. Buckeye Water Dist.
...to an award of damages to compensate him for losses which he is reasonably certain to incur in the future. Pennsylvania Co. v. Files (1901), 65 Ohio St. 403, 407, 62 N.E. 1047, 1047; Roberts v. Mut. Mfg. & Supply Co. (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 324, 16 OBR 355, 475 N.E.2d 797. Under the common l......
-
Patton v. Cleveland
...evidence from which the jury could find that pain and suffering were reasonably certain to occur in the future. Pennsylvania Co. v. Files (1901), 65 Ohio St. 403, 62 N.E. 1047; Day v. Gulley (1963), 175 Ohio St. 83, 23 O.O.2d 382, 191 N.E.2d 732; Roberts v. Mut. Mfg. & Supply Co. (1984), 16......