Case Name: Arthur J. Connelly, Resp't, v. The Manhattan Railway Company, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-06-26
Citations: 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 561
Docket Number: 
Parties: Arthur J. Connelly, Resp’t, v. The Manhattan Railway Company, App’lt
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 39
Pages: 561–567

Head Matter:
Arthur J. Connelly, Resp’t, v. The Manhattan Railway Company, App’lt
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed June 26, 1891.)
Evidence—Expert—Form oe question.
In an action for damages for personal injuries, a physician testified that he first saw the plaintiff about a fortnight after the accident, and found him then suffering from meningitis. The witness stated that he had heard the portion of the plaintiff’s testimony which gave an account of the accident. He was then asked, “ Were those injuries, received in the way which he has stated, sufficient to produce the results and conditions you discovered on your examination ? ” Held, that such question was improper, as it permitted the witness to answer for himself, irom the testimony of the plaintiff, the facts upon which he based his opinion, without informing the jury what he supposed or believed such facts to be,
Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict at circuit, and also from an order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Julien T. Davies, Alexander S. Lyman and Brainard Tolles, for app’lt; Jacob Fromme and Chauncey Shaffer, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Bartlett, J.
—There is evidence enough in this case to sustain the judgment, and I should be in favor of affirmance were it not for an error which it seems to me was committed by the learned trial judge in the admission of testimony. Dr. Adolph H. Lesser was examined as a witness to prove the extent and nature of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. He testified that he first saw the plaintiff about a fortnight after the accident, and found him then suffering from meningitis. The witness was then asked by Mr. Shaffer, who represented the plaintiff upon the trial, to what he attributed this meningitis. This question was objected to by the defendant's counsel on the ground that it allowed the witness to accept or reject such facts as he saw fit, and because the form of the question was improper, and the opinion of the witness should be asked on facts stated; it being admitted that the witness had no knowledge of the plaintiff until after the accident. The objection was overruled, and the defendant's counsel excepted, and the witness answered: " 1 have heard a portion of the plaintiff's testimony." What next followed is shown by this extract, from the appeal book:
"Question by the court: The plaintiff in this case claims to have been thrown down in a car of the elevated railroad, on his back. Did you hear his statement of the manner in which he was thrown down? A. Yes, sir, I heard that."
Thereupon the court put the following question:
"In answer to court: Q. Were those injuries, received in the way in which he has stated, sufficient to produce the results and conditions you discovered on your examination ? "
Counsel for defendant objected to the question on the ground stated to the question put by Mr. Shaffer to the witness. The court overruled the objection and counsel for defendant duly excepted.
"A. It was quite sufficient to produce that injury; to produce meningitis; it was quite sufficient to produce Mr. Connelly's difficulty.''
The witness then went on to say that meningitis was a progressive disease, and there can be little doubt that his testimony on this subject'tended to augment the damages awarded to the plaintiff.
I do not see how the evidence thus admitted can be distinguished from that which led to the reversal of the judgment in Page v. Mayor, 32 N. Y. State Rep., 563, and The People v. McElvaine, 121 N. Y., 250; 30 N. Y. State Rep., 977. The objection to the question allowed to be answered was that it permitted the witness to assume for himself from the testimony of the plaintiff the facts upon which he based his opinion, without informing the jury what he supposed or believed such facts to be. No doubt it is not an uncommon practice, in examining medical witnesses, to ask them whether they have heard the testimony of the person who deposed to the circumstances under which injuries were received, and if he answers in the affirmative, to inquire as to his opinion upon the testimony so given. This practice, however, which is usually resorted to for the purpose of facilitating the progress of the trial can only be justified where no objection is made. The party against whom the evidence is offered is entitled, if he so desires, to have an explicit statement made to or by the expert witness of the precise state of facts upon which his opinion is based; and it seems to me clear that this rule was disregarded in the admission of the evidence to which reference has been made on the trial of the case at bar.
For these reasons, I think we ought to reverse the judgment and order a new trial.
Yan Brunt, P. J., concurs.