Case Name: LAZARUS v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-02-23
Citations: 92 N.Y.S. 246
Docket Number: 
Parties: LAZARUS v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 92
Pages: 246–247

Head Matter:
LAZARUS v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
February 23, 1905.)
Evidence—Expert Opinion—Hypothetical Questions.
Where, in an action for injuries, a physician testified that, from his examination of plaintiff and his knowledge of the subject, he could state with reasonable certainty what plaintiff’s nervousness resulted from', and, being asked to state, replied, “Momentum and shock is possible to bring on this nervousness in a man,” such reply was incompetent, and it was error to refuse to strike the same.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Thirteenth District.
Action by David Lazarus against the New York City Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Argued before SCOTT, GIEGERICH, and McCALL, JJ.
Henry W. Goddard and William E. Weaver, for appellant.
Mr. Silverstein, for respondent.

Opinion:
McCALL, J.
The court asked the attending physician in this case the following question: "From your examination of the plaintiff, and from your knowledge of the subject, can you state with any degree of reásonable certainty what this nervousness resulted from ?" To which the witness replied, "Yes, sir." When the court asked him to "kindly state," instead of answering the question as he should have— he being supposedly able to, as indicated in his reply to the court's first query—the witness replied, "Momentum and shock is possible to bring on this nervousness in a man." Whereupon the defendant's'attorney moved to strike the answer out, and, the court denying his motion, he took an exception thereto. The answer given falls under the ban of a long line of decisions, and it was error that calls for a reversal of this judgment not to have granted that motion. More particularly is this so when we consider that the condition about which the doctor was then testifying was one of the most important features in the litigation.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.