Prince v. Lowe, 5 Div. 601
Decision Date | 24 February 1955 |
Docket Number | 5 Div. 601 |
Citation | 263 Ala. 410,82 So.2d 606 |
Parties | W. M. PRINCE et al. v. Henry C. LOWE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J. A. Walker, Jacob Walker, Jr., Walker & Walker, Opelika, for appellants.
L. J. Tyner, Opelika, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the defendants in a damage suit from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Henry C. Lowe. The suit arose out of a collision of Lowe's automobile with defendants' truck and as a result of the collision Lowe received a broken back.
Assignments of error 4 to 16, inclusive, deal with objections to questions propounded by plaintiff to two doctors or with motions to exclude the answers after they were permitted. The chief objection assigned to the questions was that they called for hearsay testimony, although many other grounds of objection were stated.
Dr. Samford is a specialist in the field of X-ray and Dr. Owsley was Mr. Lowe's attending physician. Dr. Samford, Dr. Owsley and Dr. Jack Hughston held conferences dealing with the injuries to Mr. Lowe's back. Plaintiff showed more than once that Dr. Jack Hughston was 'the bone specialist' from Columbus, Georgia. Dr. Hughston was not present at the trial. Dr. Samford and Dr. Owsley each testified as to their individual diagnosis and prognosis of the case but, following that testimony, each was asked on direct examination what Dr. Hughston said in the conferences and whether the opinion or conclusion of the witness was concurred in by the other doctors. We quote these questions and answers from the record omitting the objections, the rulings of the court, the motions to exclude, the exceptions and a few nonpertinent remarks.
Testimony of Dr. Samford:
Testimony of Dr. Owsley:
The court announced that the record would show that the evidence was admitted on the authority of three cases: Grammer v. State, 239 Ala. 633, 196 So. 268; Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Brantley, 231 Ala. 554, 165 So. 834 and Taylor v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 232 Ala. 378, 168 So. 181.
The exact question before us has not been decided may times. In 1886 in the case of Village of Ponca v. Crawford, 18 Neb. 551, 26 N.W. 365, 367, a doctor was on the stand and testified in part as follows:
"Q. State, if you can, what caused that, or what it is (an enlargement of the breast). A. I don't exactly know what it is. I have been puzzled in my own mind in regard to it; so much so that I laid the case before Drs. Frazer, Biggs, and Clinger, of Sioux City, and they were not fully decided in their own minds as to what it was.
'Q. Were you present at the time of this alleged examination by those doctors? A. I was; yes, sir.
'Q. Did you take part in it? A. Yes, sir. * * *
'Q. State what you found as the result of that examination. A. They didn't decide fully what it was.
'Q. State more fully whether you took part in the examination, and in the forming of the opinion that resulted. A. Well, if you will allow me to explain, I took him into Dr. Frazer's office first, and told him there was a matter which I wanted his opinion about; and if he thought best, I wanted other opinions in regard to it. He said he would like to have Dr. Biggs see that also; so we had Dr. Biggs come in, and then we had Dr. Clinger come in, and they all examined that with him. All of us had hands in that examination, and each expressed his opinion of it after it was done. The result of that examination was that we decided that it was the result of an injury.
The court then said:
The next case we find is that of Hussey v. State, 87 Ala. 121, 6 So. 420, 425, decided in 1888, where the court said:
In 1937 the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, upholding the lower court in excluding testimony of one doctor who related the opinion of another doctor, said in Tevis v. Proctor & Gamble Distributing Co., 21 Tenn.App. 494, 113 S.W.2d 64, 70:
In the case of Bluebird Baking Co. v. McCarthy, Ohio App., 1935, 36 N.E.2d 801, 805, the court in holding that the lower court erred in permitting the witness, a local surgeon, to quote 'a reputably recognized brain specialist', cited with approval the following statement: '* * * 'the testimony of a physician that other physicians concurred with him in his opinion is hearsay.''
In Jones on Evidence, Civil Cases, 4th Ed. Vol. 1, p. 297, it is said: 'By hearsay is meant that kind of evidence which derives its value, not solely from the credit to be attached to the witness himself, but also in part because of the veracity and competency of some other person from whom the witness may have received...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wesley v. State
... ... 575 So.2d 108 ... Ronald Harvey WESLEY ... 1 Div. 863 ... Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama ... death by electrocution pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-40(a)(10). He raises three issues on this appeal from that ... Hudson, 265 Ala. 630, 635, 93 So.2d 138 (1956); Prince v. Lowe, 263 Ala. 410, 413-16, 82 So.2d 606 (1955). "There ... ...
-
Hayes v. State, 6 Div. 2
... ... 20, 1981 ... Page 129 ... Robert F. Prince, Tuscaloosa, for appellant ... Charles A. Graddick, ... m. on September 5, 1978, in the presence of his attorney and Sergeant Shirley Fields ... Our Supreme Court in Prince v. Lowe, 263 Ala. 410, 82 So.2d 606, ... Page 142 ... 609 (1955) lists three ... ...
-
Salotti v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co.
... ... St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 5 Cir., 312 F.2d 84, in which the court held that it was ... Hudson, 265 Ala. 630, 93 So.2d 138 (1956) and Prince ... 630, 93 So.2d 138 (1956) and Prince v. Lowe ... ...
-
Brackin v. State
...417 So.2d 602 ... Charles BRACKIN ... 4 Div. 984 ... Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama ... June ... Reeves, 288 Ala. 121, 257 So.2d 839 (1972); Price v. Lowe, 263 Ala. 410, 82 So.2d 606 (1955). This is in accord with ... ...