Page:The Law and the Doctor Vol 2 - The Physician as Witness.djvu/40

34 these periods account for her condition?" "I think it would not." This evidence was held to be competent and proper. Again, in the same case, the testimony of Dr. B. was held to be competent which was to the effect that he had visited Mrs. M. three days after the accident and daily thereafter for several weeks; that at his first visit, her pulse was very small and frequent; that she complained of pains in her head, back and limbs ; that her breathing was not natural; that she complained of numbness in her limbs and inability to use them, indicating a tendency to paralysis; that these symptoms afterward increased and continued to the time of the trial; that he thought her difficulty was an injury to the spinal columcolumn [sic], which, he said, may be produced by a severe jar in any form, and that, in his opinion, it was produced by violence, and would be permanent.

In the case of Robinson v. Marino, (a) a physician who had examined wounds caused by a dog-bite was asked: "From your knowledge as a surgeon and general practitioner, can you tell what the probable cause of those wounds was?" This was held to have been a proper question.

In a Wisconsin case (b) it was held proper for the physician to testify that, in his opinion, the plaintiff's condition as he found it could have been produced by a wire heavily charged with electricity. In a Texas case (c) a physician was asked: "Please state your opinion on the following case: Suppose a woman of the size and weight of Mrs. B. should be sitting in a railway passenger coach which is in motion, and another train, which is moving at right angles with, or nearly at right angles with, the train in which she is traveling, should come in collision with her train and knock the locomotive of the train of which her coach is a part off the track, and should jerk and jar the coach in which she is sitting sufficiently to throw her from her seat, would such a force be sufficient to cause, and would it probably cause, the injuries which you have described in the case of Mrs. B.?" This was held to be a proper question to be answered by a physician who knew Mrs. B.'s condition.

So was the following question and answer held to be competent: "Now, taking the injury as you find it there, and taking your

(a) Robinson v. Marino, 3 Wash. 434. (c) Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Burnett, 80 Tex. 536 (6) Block v. Milwaukee St. R. Co., 89 Wis. 371.