Court Opinion

ID: 9776258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:28:51.436013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:36.414604
License: Public Domain

George Rose Smith, Justice, concurring. I agree that testimony about the second accident was not admissible, the element of proximate cause being absent. According to the plaintiff’s proof, the first accident caused him to have spells of blacking out. That susceptibility was an injury for which he was entitled to be compensated according to its “nature, extent, and duration.” AMI Civil 2d, 2202 (1974). He could prove to what extent the injury affected him, including any impaired ability to drive a car with safety, but specific instances such as the occurrence of the second accident should have been excluded.