Court Opinion

ID: 9648711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:33:18.740465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:04.844806
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In this particular matter the appellee has filed a very comprehensive and vigorous brief on motion for rehearing, and while our opinion is the same, we do feel that we should write on this motion.
In our original opinion we felt it necessary to reverse the trial court and remand this case for another trial. It is apparent from appellee’s brief, and we agree, that Mr. Linder, the appellee herein, was undoubtedly under a strong compulsion to work whenever possible because of the illness and attendant medical expenses of his little daughter, who was suffering from cancer. It is clear that in this case the “spur of necessity” does exist. But we must still maintain our position that there is no statement by anyone that, in his or her opinion, Mr. Linder is permanently injured.
Appellee calls our attention to our mention of the lack of medical testimony and also correctly states the law relative to the tender of surgery. We believe our opinion is clear in that we do not believe the lower court had enough evidence before it to submit the issues in question and that, correspondingly, there was insufficient evidence to warrant the jury’s finding such issues favorable to appellee. We mentioned the lack of medical testimony merely as an item indicative of the dearth of testimony. We also mentioned that the possible effects of surgery had not been negatived. Ap-pellee states in his brief as follows (we cannot cite the page as they are not numbered, but this quotation is at the bottom of the fourth page) :
“From May 12, 1960, until approximately the middle of August, Linder was under the regular care of the Midland ‘bone specialists’, who, at the time of his discharge from the hospital, had prescribed a back brace for him; they have not, by the way, suggested he discontinue its use, nor has any of the several doctors seeing him.”
We repeat, none of these doctors testified, nor are there any records from any of these hospitals. Therefore, whatever the doctors said or however they might feel about this back brace or its curative effects or the inability of the brace to cure, must remain in the realm of speculation based only on Mr. and Mrs. Linder’s testimony that he was not getting any better. There isn’t even any testimony that this was the right kind of a brace. Also, ap-pellee in his brief makes this statement:
“Of all the doctors treating him, the record does not reflect that any of them ever told him that he could, or would, be able to go back to work.”
This is true, of course, but it is equally true that the record does not reflect that of all the eight doctors involved, any of them told him that he would not get well, or that his injuries were permanent. We do not know what the doctors told him, because their testimony is not present in this record.
In conclusion, we would like again to call attention to the fact that the only two witnesses were plaintiff and his wife, and neither of them offered testimony or opinion that he was permanently injured. This, in our opinion, places too great a burden and too much responsibility on any court or jury, and leaves the outcome entirely too vulnerable to speculation, because it is *800hard to conceive how a finding that a man is permanently injured can be upheld when nobody has said that he is. We have considered this case with great care, because of its factual background and the hardships involved, as well as the seriousness of the legal problems; but we must adhere to our original position that there was insufficient evidence to warrant the court in submitting the two issues and to sustain and uphold the jury’s answers thereto.
Therefore, we must sustain appellant’s Points 1 and 3, and hold that this decision of the trial court be reversed and the cause remanded for new trial. Motion for rehearing overruled.