Case Title: Mauro v. Tracy

Citation: 380 P.2d 570

Docket Number: 

State: colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Date: 1963-04-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
380 P.2d 570 (1963) Roger MAURO, Plaintiff in Error, v. Dorothy Jeanne TRACY, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas Maiolo, deceased, Defendant in Error. No. 20113. Supreme Court of Colorado. In Department. April 8, 1963. Robert E. McLean, Marjorie Worland McLean, Joseph P. Lewis, Denver, for plaintiff in error. Yegge, Hall & Shulenburg, Raymond J. Connell, Denver, for defendant in error. MOORE, Justice. We will refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court where plaintiff in error's intestate was plaintiff and defendant in error was defendant. The action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff in an automobile accident. Defendant offered no defense on the issue of liability and the case was submitted to the jury for determination of the amount to which plaintiff was entitled to recover. The verdict of the jury assessed the damages at $1,500.00 and judgment entered upon the verdict. Plaintiff being dissatisfied with the amount of the judgment seeks to have the verdict and judgment set aside on the sole ground that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of two doctors who were employed by him for treatment following the accident in which his asserted injuries were sustained. Plaintiff testified that immediately after the accident he experienced pain in his neck and back; that on the following day he went to see Dr. Goebel who was not in his office, consequently he was examined and treated by Dr. Roller who was associated in the practice of medicine with Dr. Goebel. He further testified that for a period of six months thereafter Dr. Goebel treated him for the injuries received in the *571 accident. He stated that X-rays were taken; drugs were prescribed to relieve pain, and that pursuant to these doctors' instructions he remained at home in bed for two weeks following the accident. He stated that for the professional services of doctors Koller and Goebel, made necessary by the accident, he paid the sum of $78.00, and that he lost two and one-half months work because of the injuries sustained by him. Following the testimony of the plaintiff, defendant called Doctors Koller and Goebel, each of whom gave testimony seriously impeaching the evidence offered by plaintiff as to the extent of his injuries, the treatments prescribed in connection therewith, and the amount of their charge for professional services. Dr. Goebel's testimony disputed plaintiff's statement that several visits subsequent to the date of the accident were for treatment of injuries suffered therefrom. He stated that these subsequent consultations and treatments were for other causes. Plaintiff objected to the admission of this testimony on the ground that its reception violated C.R.S. '53, 153-1-7, which provides in pertinent part that a person shall not be examined as a witness in the following cases: It will be noted that plaintiff first opened the door for the admission of this testimony by his own statements of the details of the treatment given by these doctors and the charges made therefor. As to the matters testified to by plaintiff the protection of the statute was waived. In Hill v. Hill, 106 Colo. 492, 107 P.2d 597, the question arose as to the admissibility of letters written by a client to her attorney. The objection was that the offered letters were privileged communications. From the opinion in that case we quote the following: In Fearnley v. Fearnley, 44 Colo. 417, 98 P. 819, a similar question was presented. The court's opinion in that case includes the following: See also in this connection Sholine v. Harris, 22 Colo.App. 63, 123 P. 330; and Browning, et al. v. Potter, 129 Colo. 448, 271 P.2d 418. The trial court did not err in admitting the testimony to which objection was made. The judgment is affirmed. FRANTZ, C. J., and PRINGLE, J., concur.