The City of Bloomington v. Shrock

• Decision Date: 11 June 1884
• Citation: The City of Bloomington v. Shrock, 110 Ill. 219, 1884 WL 9874, 51 Am.Rep. 678 (Ill. 1884)
• Parties: THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTONv.LAURA SHROCK.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

110 Ill. 219

1884 WL 9874 (Ill.)

51 Am.Rep. 678

THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON

v.LAURA SHROCK.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed at Springfield Jun. 11, 1884.

APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the Third District;--heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. OWEN T. REEVES, Judge, presiding.

Mr. JOHN T. LILLARD, for the appellant:

The court below was probably misled by a false interpretation of the rulings in Chicago Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Ellis,89 Ill. 516, where a doctor had stated that he had read text books that he might be able to state why he diagnosed the case as delirium tremens.It was for that reason held that his knowledge of the question and of the books might be tested by propounding questions to him from the book.Here the appellant elicited nothing from the books.The course pursued in this case is not answered by the decision in 89 Ill. 516, supra, for there the doctor had, in chief, professed a knowledge and familiarity with the books, and he was, of course, open to a cross-examination on the books; and as to the jury, it is almost everywhere admitted they are not to be enlightened by the reading of medical works.Washburn v. Cuddihy,8 Gray, 430;Commonwealth v. Wilson,1 Id. 338;People v. Hall,48 Mich. 482;Gale v. Rector,5 Bradw. 481;Marshall v. Brown,50 Mich. 148;Commonwealth v. Sturtevant,117 Mass. 122.And seeRogers on Expert Testimony, secs. 181, 182, in the notes of which are cited the above mentioned and many other cases.

Messrs. FIFER & PHILLIPS, for the appellee:

It is proper to read from standard medical works in cross-examining medical experts.( Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Ellis,89 Ill. 516.)The books were not given in evidence.

The case of Marshall v. Brown,50 Mich. 148, holds that medical books are not admissible in evidence, and in that case the book was sought to be, in effect, introduced in evidence under the guise of asking the witness to approve certain passages read from it.We did no such thing in the case at bar.We simply tested the witness, sifted his scientific pretensions, and elicited the truth.There are many courts which hold that standard medical books may be read in evidence.Other courts hold the contrary.Between the two your honors have taken a ground promotive, we think, of justice, which ought by all means to be maintained, and it is hoped that the doctrine will be enlarged rather than restricted.Mr. JUSTICE SCHOLFIELD delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action on the case, for negligence, by appellee, against appellant.Appellee, a married woman, was violently thrown down while walking along a sidewalk adjacent to one of appellant's streets, by reason of a defect in the sidewalk, and thereby received injuries which, she claimed, resulted in causing her to have an abortion.It was contended by appellant, upon the trial, that she was guilty of such contributory negligence as to bar her right to recover, in omitting proper care and caution to avoid the abortion,--and this was the most important question upon the trial, although there were other questions of minor consideration contested.

Dr. Luce was called and examined as a witness on behalf of appellant, as an expert, and gave evidence tending to prove that appellee was guilty of negligence in the respect contended by appellant.He quoted from and made reference to no book; but upon his cross-examination, counsel for appellee inquired of him whether he was acquainted with “Playfair,” and “Bedford,”(treatises on midwifery,) and upon his responding in the affirmative, and that they were standard authorities on questions of this character, counsel proceeded to read at length from each of these authors, consecutively, and then inquired of the witness whether he agreed with the authors as to the parts so read.This was objected to by the counsel for appellant, but allowed by the court, and the witness was required to make answer.

The weight of current authority is decidedly against the admission of scientific books in evidence before a jury, although in some States they are admissible.(1 Greenleaf on Evidence, sec. 440, and note;Wharton on Evidence, sec. 665;Rogers on Expert Testimony, secs. 168, 169, et seq., and cases cited in notes.)And the weight of current authority is, also, against allowing such treatises to be read from, to contradict an expert, generally.(See authorities supra,andCommonwealth v. Sturtevant,117 Mass. 122;Davis v. The State,38 Md. 15;The State v. O'Brien,7 R. I. 336.)Where, however, an expert assumes to base his opinion upon the work of a particular author, that work may be read in evidence to contradict him.This was,...