Court Opinion

ID: 9591345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:03:42.663385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:09.834339
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the judgment and opinion with the exception of Division 2; as to it, I believe the question was proper and was not clearly redundant. However, in light of all of the other evidence on the matter, its exclusion would not require a reversal. Nor did counsel make plain what he was driving at, when the objection was made, or how this question differed from what had previously been asked. It is true that Dr. Burton had discounted a causal relationship between the col*570lision and the pneumothorax. Further, as said earlier, it was his opinion that what Presley suffered was spontaneous. The question sought to elicit whether the pneumothorax which he diagnosed on July 20 could have existed as early as July 6. Counsel was inquiring about the timing of the pneumothorax, not directly about its cause. Obviously, if the witness said “no,” it would be further that the two events could not have happened on the same date, even coincidentally and unrelat-edly. If he said “yes,” then he could be called upon to explain away their apparent relationship.
Decided April 12, 1985.
Joseph H. Chambless, for appellant.
J. Stephen Manko, for appellee.