Court Opinion

ID: 9539503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:05:06.354124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:54.506597
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
(a) Some exception should be advanced to Division 3 of the majority opinion, which relies upon Blount v. Moore, 159 Ga. App. 80 (1) (282 SE2d 720) (1981), and Hawkins v. Greenberg, 159 Ga. App. 302, 309-310 (283 SE2d 301) (1981). Just as medicine in large part remains an inexact science, the law on the propriety of instructing the jury on such likewise appears somewhat less than exact to both judges and lawyers, considering the number of reversals in cases dealing with this matter. In Blount v. Moore, supra, four judges concluded that the “inexact science” charge is erroneous and inappropriate; however, inclusion of the charge, it was held, will not be reversible error if it is accompanied by an instruction that a doctor must exercise the care and skill ordinarily employed by that profession generally. One judge, in dissenting, actually considered the “inexact science” charge alone to be reversible error. Three judges, the writer included, did not disapprove of the jury charge under the facts of that case. One judge concurred in the judgment only.
It is still this writer’s belief that the “inexact science” charge should not be categorically “disapproved” in all situations. Some areas of medicine are more nearly exact than others, and in cases involving these areas the “inexact science” charge should be omitted. In cases involving most other areas of medicine, use of the charge would be proper. If the “inexact science” charge has been disapproved, as indicated in the majority opinion of the case sub judice, the disapproval was effected by only a coalition of the four judges and the dissenting judge in Blount v. Moore, supra. I do not believe that this coalition constituted a uniform majority necessary for such a purpose. Actually, the only thing any five judges did agree upon was a judgment which affirmed the trial court even though the “inexact science” charge was given.
Because there was no real majority in Blount v. Moore, supra, and Hawkins v. Greenberg, supra, was only a two-judge opinion, neither case has any precedential value. The opportunity thus remains for this court to follow the most sensible approach; that is, simply determine whether the “inexact science” charge is authorized by the evidence (as did the three specially concurring judges in Blount v. Moore, supra). If, however, my assessment of the status of Blount v. *217Moore is incorrect, that case and its progeny should be overruled.
(b) In Division 6, the majority opinion correctly states that books of science and art are not admissible in evidence to prove the opinions of experts announced therein. Isley v. Little, 219 Ga. 23, 31 (18) (131 SE2d 623). An expert, however, may testify about opinions of his own derived from books. “But, notwithstanding the inadmissibility of the books, the opinions contained therein may come to the jury through the mouth of an expert witness.” Boswell v. State, 114 Ga. 40, 43 (39 SE 897) (1901). “It was competent for a medical expert to testify that, in his opinion, a given disease ‘may be cured by a surgical operation, but it is very rarely the case that this can be done,’ though the witness further testified he had no experience in treating that disease, but dérived all his knowledge on the subject from reading medical authorities.” Mayor of Jackson v. Boone, 93 Ga. 662 (1) (20 SE 46) (1894). “We find the following pertinent note at the bottom of the latter page: ‘Said Dr. Crell, on the trial of Spencer Cowper, in answer to an objection by the court: ‘My Lord, it must be by reading, as well as a man’s own experience, that will make any one a physician, for without the reading of books in the art, the art itself cannot be attained to. I humbly conceive that in such a difficult case as this, we ought to have a great deference for the reports and opinions of learned men; neither do I see any reason why I should not quote the fathers of my profession in this case, as well as you gentlemen of the long robe quote Coke upon Littleton in yours’; and upon this answer the doctor was permitted to proceed with the quotation.” Id. at 663. “ ‘Scientific men are permitted to give their opinions as experts, because given under oath, but the books which they write containing them are, for the want of such oath, excluded.’ ” Johnston v. Richmond & Danville R. Co., 95 Ga. 685, 688 (22 SE 694) (1895). Nevertheless, a fine line is drawn as a witness’ opinion “must be his own and he cannot act as a mere conduit for the opinions of others.” Hyles v. Cockrill, 169 Ga. App. 132, 134 (312 SE2d 124) (1983). In other words, an expert may give his own opinion as to opinions or facts contained in a scientific text but may not expound or relay only opinions of others found in books without giving his own.
The rule is different in other states. Alabama, Massachusetts, and other jurisdictions allow introduction into evidence of scientific treatises to prove the truth of the statements therein. “Because of the dependability and disinterestedness of authoritative published works, the Alabama view is generally approved by the commentators. The objection to the effect that science is shifting is based on exaggeration and to the extent that it is true simply presents a parallel to the disagreement of experts testifying in person.” (Emphasis supplied.) Green, Ga. Law of Evid. (2nd ed.), § 325, p. 506. See also McCormick on Evid., § 321; Morgan, Basic Problems of Evid., 319; 6 Wigmore, *218Evid., § 1690.
A trial judge, in determining the verifiable certainty of a particular scientific technique or procedure, may view, study, or read “treatises,” among other considerations, Harper v. State, 249 Ga. 519, 525 (292 SE2d 389) (1982); and an appellate judge, Justice Lumpkin, in Smith v. State, 23 Ga. 297, 305 (1857), utilized a medical treatise, Dr. Gooch’s Lectures on Midwifery, on his own motion, as a fund of general knowledge or a recounting of common knowledge, as opposed to a source of evidence, with which to weigh the sufficiency of the credible evidence in determination of the medical issue involving “the law of constitutional orgasm or the excitation of sexual passion” where incestuous bastardy was decided.
Under the cited authority, the trial court properly allowed Dr. Combs to point out in the treatise where the pertinent study was located and, likewise, allowed him to be tested on his knowledge as to the text upon which his opinion had been partly based.
The trial court should be affirmed.