Court Opinion

ID: 8311315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-17 13:48:39.487491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:44:44.352730
License: Public Domain

BrewhR, J.
In this case, since the argument of a motion for a new trial, I have road carefully the testimony as well as the briefs of counsel, and will now state my conclusions. Extended comment is unnecessary. In September, 1883, Sorenson, the plaintiff’s intestate, jumped from one of defendant’s trains, and suffered thereby severe bruises. His jump was at the instance of the conductor, justified by the threatening peril of a collision, and without imputation of blame or negligence on his part. The peril was caused by the culpable negligence of defendant’s employes. Soon thereafter Sorenson began to droop and fail, and in September, 1884, he died. That for all injuries directly and proximatcly caused by the jump from the train defendant is liable is beyond dispute; is indeed not denied by counsel for the company. The contention is that death resulted from heart and aortic troubles existing prior to September, 1883. Physicians were called in on both sides. They differed in opinion. Much of their testimony was purely speculative, — a discussion of possibilities and probabilities. Upon the whole cast;, and the various matters discussed by counsel with great throughness and ability, 1 remark briefly:
1. Expression of opinion upon questions of fact by the trial judge is permissible, providing the jury are clearly informed that such expression is not binding upon them, and that they are to exercise their own judgment.
2. There is no objection to a plaintiff’s closing his case with medical and expert testimony based upon the facts as then presented, and no rule recognizing the exclusion of such testimony, if, other facts being developed by defendant’s witnesses, the, medical witness is not recalled for further examination.
3. Where medical witnesses disagree in opinion and theory, the undisputed history of the case is often the most satisfactory and controlling fact. In this case such history fully justified the verdict. While some two or three years before this injury Sorenson had been injured by the fall of a derrick, and had two or three ribs broken, yet he soon recovered therefrom, and was a strong, hearty', and hard-working man until this time. Soon after this accident he began to droop and fail, and so continued failing, with a short and slight change for the better in the spring of 1884, until his death in September, 1884. Such a fact is significant, and upholds the verdict. I know that post hoc is not always propter hoc, but where the propter hoc is uncertain, the pos-i hoc may often be decisive.
I cannot think that another trial upon similar testimony would result differently. Hence, passing all minor questions, I think the motion for a new trial must be overruled; and it is so ordered.