Opinion ID: 1792684
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: A. Voigt's case only)

Text: Appellants here complain that the trial court erred in overruling their objection as a recoverable item of damagesthe bill of Dr. Rowe for treatment of Mrs. Voigt following the collision. Burden was on plaintiff Mr. Voigt to prove that he was entitled to recover on this item. Aplin v. Dean, 231 Ala. 320, 164 So. 737(11). Dr. Rowe testified that the collision would exaggerate the condition she already had. On cross-examination, witness testified with reference to the treatments accorded Mrs. Voigt from October 1, 1960, one week after the collision, to and including March 1, 1961; that there was no way to tell how many of these treatments would have been necessary if she had not had the accident. He further testified you couldn't really tell that each one of the treatments was caused by the accident. We think the bill was admissible. Dr. Rowe had already testified that the automobile collision exaggerated Mrs. Voigt's physical condition. It also appears from the evidence that Mrs. Voigt had not for sometime before the accident received any medical treatment for her female troubles. If these troubles were activated or exaggerated by the collision at the fault of defendants, medical treatments therefor were recoverable items of damage against defendants. We do not think it was possible for the physician to apportion the expense of treatment to a prior existing condition and the exaggeration. The exaggeration induced further treatment and the expense of such treatment, even though in part referable to an old condition, was recoverable. The bill was properly admitted for consideration of the jury.