Court Opinion

ID: 9600934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:33:31.356967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:54.540427
License: Public Domain

SCHAUER, J.,
Dissenting.
I concur in the conclusion reached by Justice Carter. Dr. Webb testified that in his practice and medical experience he had “become familiar with the practice and procedure adopted by reputable physicians and surgeons in the treatment and care of traumatic injuries in general in Los Angeles and vicinity’* and also that he had “become familiar with the practice and procedure adopted by reputable physicians and surgeons in the treatment and care of traumatic injuries to the head and brain.” The details of his varied experience, *485following graduation from the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University in 1902, are reflected in his testimony through many pages of transcript. The inferences to be drawn from such details of experience in respect to the weight which should be accorded Dr. Webb’s opinions on the questions at issue may vary, but one thing seems certain to me; he was qualified as an expert competent to form and express an opinion on those questions. Considering all of the evidence touching on his qualifications, it surely does not destroy, but rather supports, the ultimate conclusionary facts above quoted.
The two hypothetical questions addressed to Dr. Webb went directly to the heart of plaintiff’s case. In my view it was, under all the circumstances, an abuse of discretion, and prejudicial error, to hold that Dr. Webb was not qualified to answer those questions.
The judgment of nonsuit should be reversed.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied July 26, 1951. Carter, J., and Schauer, J., voted for a rehearing.