Williams v. Morris
| Decision Date | 17 October 1966 |
| Parties | Robert F. WILLIAMS, Marjorie H. Williams and Jeffrey R. Williams, a minor, by Robert F. Williams, his next friend, Plaintiffs, v. Charles F. MORRIS, Defendant. |
| Court | Delaware Superior Court |
This is an action for damages arising from an automobile accident alleged to have been caused by the defendant's negligence. The above matter comes before this Court on objections by the plaintiff, Marjorie H. Williams (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' 1), to defendant's 'Further Interrogatories.'
The complaint recites the following allegation:
'As a result of the negligence of the defendant, plaintiff Marjorie H. Williams was thrown against the windshield of the Williams vehicle sustaining multiple lacerations of the forehead, head injuries, hematoma with embedded glass, shock and acute anxiety requiring surgical and medical treatment with scarring above the right eye and has since the accident experienced and now experiences frequent and serious headaches with nausea and giddiness and a reduction of sensation above the right eye and on the right side of her head, the duration of which cannot now be predicted, and has experienced intense physical pain and suffering and mental disturbance.'
In answer to defendant's original interrogatories, plaintiff restated the aforementioned injuries and added the occurrence of recent fainting spells. In the original interrogatories, the defendant inquired into and received answers concerning, among others, the following matters: the physicians and surgeons who either treated or examined the plaintiff, the nature of such treatments, and the dates; medical institutions to which she was admitted for her injuries; the complaints which have persisted since the accident and the complaints which were temporary in nature; the doctors who are presently treating the plaintiff; X-rays that have been taken and the custodians of such X-rays; the nature of the medical reports and records that have been prepared and at whose request they were prepared; and the dates of all electroencephalographic (EEG) tests and where they were performed. The interrogatories also contained a blank medical authorization which plaintiff refused to grant. Although the defendant has examined the plaintiff by oral deposition, he has not received responsive answers, as the plaintiff was unable to comprehend her doctor's explanation of the cause of her headaches and other ailments.
Subsequently defendant served upon the plaintiff the following interrogatories to which plaintiff has objected:
'24. With reference to the headaches which you claim to have experienced as a result of the accident state as precisely as possible the conclusions reached by your physicians concerning the causes of your headaches and as to each such conclusion state the name of the doctor who reached that conclusion.
25. With reference to any electroencephogram (sic) which has been performed state:
(c) A precise description of the results of the analysis of the test.
26. If any treating physician his indicated to you or anyone on your behalf, either verbally or in writing that any of your complaints resulting from this accident are permanent, state the name of such doctor and, as to such doctor state:
(a) A specific description of the disability which is alleged to be permanent.
(b) When such conclusion was made known to you or anyone on your behalf.
(c) Whether any improvement is expected in such complaint in the future.'
Rule 33 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, Del.C.Ann., defines the scope of interrogatories. 2 It states that '(i)nterrogatories may relate to any matters which can be inquired into under Rule 26(b)'. Under Rule 26(b), a person may be examined about any matters which are relevant, not privileged, and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, even though the answers might not be admissible evidence. Interrogatories may also be used to determine 'the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, or documents * * *.' Relevancy, not admissibility in evidence, is the test to determine whether interrogatories are proper if they are not otherwise objectionable. Gyorkos v. Reynolds, 7 Terry 449, 85 A.2d 236 (Super.1951).
The issue presented here is whether or not a non-expert party may be compelled to answer interrogatories of a technical nature relating to the expert medical opinions and conclusions of the interrogated party's doctor. This precise question is one of first impression in Delaware. The federal courts have not permitted interrogatories to discover expert opinions absent special or distinctive circumstances such as the information was not otherwise obtainable by the interrogating party. 86 A.L.R.2d 138, 146--147. The rule is well stated in United Air Lines, Inc. v. United States, 26 F.R.D. 213 (D.Del.1960):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Papen v. Suburban Propane Gas Corp.
...as yet not employed. These interrogatories, in this sense, go even further than those successfully objected to in Williams v. Morris, 223 A.2d 390 (Super.Ct.1967). The next interrogatory objected to reads, as '16. (e) Whether passage of gas through earth, wood or concrete might partly filte......
-
American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware v. Danberg, No. 06C-08-067-JRS (Del. Super. 3/15/2007)
...in the discussion of the "pending or potential litigation" exception to FOIA. 7. Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 26(c). 8. See Williams v. Morris, 223 A.2d 390, 391 (Del. 1966). 9. See American Ins. Co. v. Synvar Corp., 199 A.2d 755, 757 (Del. 10. Mell v. New Castle County, 835 A.2d 141, 146 (Del. ......