Court Opinion

ID: 9829601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:28:00.195695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:03.399562
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In its motion for rehearing, appellant challenges the correctness of the court’s conclusions in two respects.
Summarizing the testimony of appellee, bearing on the question whether or not the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for an instructed verdict and in submitting the case to the jury, among other things, we said that appellee “tried to do farm work, to run a cultivator, but was never able to do anything like a day’s work, and the five years that he was on the farm didn’t drive the binder altogether half a day; couldn’t drive without pain, and operated the cultivator very little and made no hand at all around the thrasher”.
Appellant insists that we erred in stating, in effect, that appellee was on the farm five years after receiving his alleged injuries, contending that he was on the farm only about two years. On a reexamination of the point under consideration, we find that appellant is correct; the testimony shows that appellee owned the farm only about two years, but our statement in other respects is adhered to as being correct.
In the conclusion stated, we followed rather closely appellee’s brief, which stated “that during the five years, he (appellee) was on the farm he didn’t drive the binder altogether one-half day. He could not drive the binder without pain. He had pain when he tried to drive it. That he tried to run the cultivator very little during the whole five years. That when he tried to drive the cultivator he was on it something like one half hour. That he was trying to teach his boy how to work. That he made no hand at all around the thrasher.”
Bearing on the point under consideration, appellee was questioned and answered, as follows:
“Q. Will you tell the court and jury whether you ever drove a binder with that left arm? A. No, sir.
“Q. How long did you drive a binder in the five years since you have been hurt? A. Oh, I didn’t drive it half a day all put together.
“Q. All put together, the number of hours and minutes that you have driven binders in the last five years is thirty minutes? A. No. Not half a day.
“Q. I thought you said half a day. Well, could you drive the binder without pain? A. No, sir.
“Q. Did you have pain when you tried to drive binders? A. Yes, sir.” (S.F. pp. 113, 114.)
While we do not regard the error, in stating the time appellee wq,s on the farm, as of any materiality, yet, for the sake of accuracy, the opinion will be corrected to read that, during the time he was on the farm and tried to do farm work he didn’t drive the binder altogether half a day.
In the opinion, we also stated that the record disclosed that Dr. Henschen was associated with other physicians in the treatment of appellee, beginning January 7, 1933, the day after appellee was injured, and, first and last, made about twelve X-rays of appellee’s injured arm, assisted in the adjustment of broken and crushed bones, in placing appliances, and saw ap-pellee almost daily and consulted with the other physicians from time to time, etc; that the day before Dr. Henschen was called as a witness, he again examined ap-pellee’s left arm, found it to be about four inches shorter than his right arm, that there had been no union of the bone, and also made X-ray pictures. Commenting upon the testimony of Dr. Henschen as a whole, we stated that: “It does not appear that Dr. Henschen examined appellee with a view of testifying, but simply in the course of his professional duty as one of a coterie of physicians having charge of the case”. The accuracy of the latter statement is questioned by appellant, the contention being that the testimony of Dr. Henschen shows that the examination and *990X-rays, made the day before the witness was called to testify, was with the view of testifying in the cáse.
Appellant is correct. The last examination and X-rays by Dr. Henschen were made as a preparation for, and with view of his being called as a witness. We followed appellee’s brief, stating, in effect, that the testimony showed that Dr. Hen-schen examined appellee, “not for the purpose of testifying in the case, but as one of a coterie of doctors treating the patient”. (See p. 7, appellee’s brief.) As applied to his connection with the case in its initial stages, the statement in appel-lee’s brief is correct, but we find from the testimony of Dr. Henschen that the latter examination and X-rays were made as a preparation to enable him to give accurate and intelligent testimony in regard to ap-pellee’s present condition. We do not regard the error of any consequence, but the opinion will be corrected in the respect indicated.
, We have carefully examined all grounds alleged for rehearing by appellant and, finding same without merit, the motion is overruled.