Court Opinion

ID: 9833126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:28:55.511426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:59.998883
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In view of another trial, and in order to prevent any misapprehension from what was said in the original disposition of this case, we expressly disclaim any purpose of passing upon the admissibility of what is referred to as testimony tending to impeach the credibility of the appellee .as a witness. All of that testimony appears in the record as having been admitted without objection. It is adverted to merely as a part of the history of the case, and as indicating the great leniency extended by the jury to the appellee in passing upon evidence introduced in his behalf. Whatever may be said as to the admissibility of specific acts tending to show dishonesty and moral depravity, as a method of impeaching a witness, when met by some appropriate objection, it is difficult to understand why such conduct, when confessed by the witness himself on cross-examination, and admitted in evidence without *151objection, may not be considered in passing upon bis credibility. But in reaching the conclusion that the verdict rendered in this case was without proper support we are not required to pass upon the effect of impeaching evidence, or to settle a conflict in the testimony. A careful analysis of the evidence elicited from the appellee’s own witnesses convinced us that he had failed to discharge the burden which the law placed upon him to make out a case for the liberal sum recovered.
Under the pleadings the appellee assumed the burden of proving at least three essential facts in order to justify the damages awarded: (1) Negligence on the part of the railway company in failing to keep the running board of the train in proper condition; (2) that this failure caused the appellee to fall from the train; (3) that the injuries to his kidneys resulted from that fall. We are frank to concede that whatever may be said of what is offered in the record as impeaching evidence, or of the conflicts between Oole and other witnesses upon issues of fact, we should not feel justified in disturbing the findings of the jury in his -favor as to the negligence charged and the fall from the train. Proof of the remaining fact — that his kidney disease was due to that fall — is just as important as either of the others. Upon this issue Cole could only say that his symptoms developed after his fall. He was not an expert, and could not be expected to distinguish a mere sequence from a physical consequence. For proof that the fall did cause the injury we must look to the testimony of the attending physicians. One of these, Dr. Parmer, who testified by deposition, expressed no opinion favorable to the appellee upon that issue. Another, Dr. Wo-mack, also testified by deposition. What he said is sufficiently set forth in the original opinion, and need not be here repeated. Dr. J. K. Smith, another of Cole’s physicians, treated him longer and observed him more closely than either of the others. He testified orally for Cole upon the trial, and at considerable length. We here give extracts from his testimony which we think sufficiently disclose his opinion as to the cause of Cole’s injury: “If the plaintiff here had permitted me to make any of the tests that I suggested to him, by which I could really tell what was the matter or what caused his trouble, and I had found that it was stone or some other foreign substance, then I would not have attributed the trouble to cither of those injuries any more than they might have irritated it. It would not have taken any history at all. By the X-ray test you could tell whether it was stones or not, and I suggested that test, but he did not agree to that. If there is foreign substance in the kidneys such as I have been operating on and taking out of the kidneys recently, it is not produced from an injury, but from a diseased condition of the mucous membrane, something started in the process of crystallization. In severe cases of renal colie I always attribute it to stones until I negative it by other examinations. I always do until I can find out. Of course, it is not always so, so far as that is concerned. It is not as severe when it is produced by blood as when it is produced by stones. The symptoms that he had indicated stones or foreign substance in the kidney as much as anything else, in fact more than anything else. The reason I suggested it was because he had had no previous attacks, you know. Stones are a long time in forming; they are of slow growth. The symptoms I discovered might be caused by tuberculosis. That is a disease of the kidneys that causes blood and pus to come out. * * * The symptoms of the plaintiff indicated more than anything else stones or foreign substance in the kidney.”
How a jury, uninfluenced by prejudice or sympathy, could under such evidence find in favor of the appellee upon that particular issue is not easily understood. We fully appreciate the deference with which our courts are accustomed to treat the findings of fact embraced in the verdicts of juries, and we have no inclination to depart from the well-established rule. In the case of Irving v. Freeman, cited in the original opinion, the Supreme Court said: “It is settled in this court that a court of civil appeals can reverse a judgment of the district court when against the preponderance of the evidence, and remand the case.” The law does not lodge such power for nothing, but it is contemplated that in a proper case it will be exercised. A failure to set aside a verdict, when the facts justify the conclusion on the part of an appellate court that an injustice has been done the defendant, would be as gross a dereliction of duty as to inconsiderately disturb a verdict for the plaintiff.
We have again, in response to the arguments presented in the motion for a rehearing, carefully gone over the evidence, and are still of the opinion that the ends of justice demand the reversal of the judgment rendered in this case. The evidence before us warrants the conclusion that not only was there a great preponderance against the appellee, but it is difficult to find sufficient for even the most partial mind to justify the findings of the jury upon the last and important issue involved. The record also justifies the conclusions that there were some facts material to be considered about which the jury upon the first trial were left to conjecture, but which it is possible to reduce to greater certainty upon another trial.
The motion, for a rehearing is overruled.