Case Name: McKENNEY v. AMERICAN LOCOMOTIVE CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-11-11
Citations: 149 N.Y.S. 826
Docket Number: No. 262/76
Parties: McKENNEY v. AMERICAN LOCOMOTIVE CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 149
Pages: 826–832

Head Matter:
McKENNEY v. AMERICAN LOCOMOTIVE CO.
(No. 262/76.)
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
November 11, 1914.)
1. Witnesses (§ 219 ) — Privileged Communications — Waiver oe Privilege.
Where, in an action for injuries to plaintiff’s eye, he testified that a certain physician treated the eye immediately after the accident, that it was swollen, that the physician fixed him up in good'shape and sent him home, and told him to come back later on, and that the eye was so badly swollen and bruised that he could not treat it at that time, he waived the privilege as to such physician’s testimony, and it was error to exclude the physician’s testimony that the eye was not swollen at that time, and as to its actual condition.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 769, 781, 782; Dec. Dig. § 219.*]
2. Damages (§ 168*) — Evidence—Personal Injuries.
In an action for injuries to plaintiff’s eye, evidence that a cataract on the eye was a congenital cataract, which had been there from birth, and not one caused by the accident on account of which suit was brought, was material.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Damages, Cent. Dig. §§ 480, 482-486; Dec. Dig. § 168. ]
Woodward and Lyon, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Schenectady County.
Action by Frederick B. McKenney against the American Locomotive Company. From a judgment for plaintiff on the verdict of a jury, and an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.
Reversed, and new trial granted.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, LYON, HOWARD, and WOODWARD, JJ.
Alonzo P. Strong, of Schenectady, for appellant.
James J. Barry, of Schenectady (James A. Leary, .of Saratoga Springs, of counsel), for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

Opinion:
SMITH, P. J.
This judgment and order must be reversed for the error of the trial judge in excluding the testimony of Dr. Lord, sought to be adduced by the defendant, as to the condition of the plaintiff's eye prior to the accident A physician examined in behalf of the plaintiff may be asked on cross-examination whether he had not treated the patient for the same disease at a prior time. Marquardt v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 126 App. Div. 272, 110 N. Y. Supp. 657. He may also be asked respecting what he learned upon a subsequent examination, after his treatment at the time of the accident had ceased. Powers v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 105 App. Div. 358, 94 N. Y. Supp. 184. This, of course, is upon the assumption that the privilege had been waived by the plaintiff. In the case at bar the plaintiff had sworn that Dr. Lord had treated his efe, and in fact had treated both eyes immediately after the accident; that the right eye was swollen, it seemed to him, as large as his head; that Dr. Lord treated him for some time, and had treated him since; that he doctored the eye; that plaintiff was suffering from headache, and he gave him stuff to put on his head and for the headache at the time; that he went to Dr. Lord after the injury, and Dr. Lord fixed him up in good shape and sent him home, and told him to come back to him later on; he told him to come back in a couple of days and he would treat his eye; that the eye was so badly swollen and bruised that he could not treat it at that time, so he said to come back. That the testimony of the plaintiff as to the nature of his injuries and his treatment by the physicians waives the privilege of the physician seems to have been held in Rauh v. Verein, 29 App. Div. 483, 51 N. Y. Supp. 985. This case is cited with approval in Capron v. Douglass, 193 N. Y. 18, 85 N. E. 827, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1003, and also in Fox v. Union Turnpike Co., 59 App. Div. 369, 69 N. Y. Supp. 551. The plain import of the plaintiff's testimony is that the physician declined to treat the eye at that time because of its swollen condition, making it impossible for him to give such treatment. It would seem clear that this testimony would authorize the physician to swear that the eye was not swollen at that time, and also to swear what was its actual condition.' Such was the evidence sought to be given by the defendant, and ruled out, as we think erroneously, by the court.
That this testimony was very material is shown by the history of the case. The claim is that the injury produced a cataract upon the eye. That there is a cataract on the eye is admitted. The defense claims that it was a congenital cataract, one which had been there from birth, and not one caused by the accident. If so, the defendant should not be required to pay for plaintiff's misfortune.
The judgment and order should therefore be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur, except WOODWARD, J., dissenting, in opinion in which LYON, J., concurs.