Williams v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 15 November 1887
• Parties: Williams v. Johnson.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

112 Ind. 273

13 N.E. 872

Williams

v.Johnson.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

November 15, 1887.

Appeal from circuit court, Hamilton county; E. B. Goodykoontz, Judge.

R. R. Stephenson, F. M. Trissall, and W. R. Fertig, for appellant. Garver & Pfaff and Stafford & Boyd, for appellee.

Mitchell, J.

Emma C. Williams brought suit against Dempsey Johnson to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her on account of the negligent failure of Johnson to observe the “law of the road,” in consequence of which a collision occurred between their respective carriages, while passing in opposite directions on a public highway. The complaint is in two paragraphs, both of which are the same in legal effect. Stock-Yard Co. v. Mann, 107 Ind. 89, 7 N. E. Rep. 893. There was a judgment for the defendant below. At the trial Mrs. Williams testified in her own behalf, to the effect that she sustained bodily injuries, by being thrown from her carriage, and that she was attended by Dr. Herr, a practicing physician, who prescribed for injuries to her side and back. The physician was not called to testify in behalf of the plaintiff below, but upon the conclusion of her testimony, he was called as a witness on behalf of her adversary. He testified that he visited Mrs. Williams as a physician, and examined her as his patient, in a professional capacity, and that such knowledge as he had of her condition and injuries was derived from an examination of her person, and from the statements made to him by Mrs. W. at the time. The physician was permitted, after making the above disclosures, to testify over objection from the plaintiff, that, at the time he examined her, he found no evidence that she had sustained any injury from a fall or other violence. The admission of this evidence was in violation of section 497, subd. 4, Rev. St. 1881, which declares that physicians shall be incompetent to testify “as to matter communicated to them as such, by patients, in the course of their professional business.” The fact that the plaintiff had testified that she had sustained injuries, and that she called Dr. Herr, and that he had prescribed for her back and side, did not justify the admission of the evidence of the physician as to what he had or had not discovered, as the result of an examination of the plaintiff's person. The statute sets the seal of secrecy and confidence upon what a physician observes in respect to the condition of his patient's...