Court Opinion

ID: 9545219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:08:31.740998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:19.501801
License: Public Domain

WREN, Judge,
dissenting.
I must respectfully disagree. The dispute in this case concerns whether there was sufficient testimony or evidence of a causal relationship between plaintiff’s automobile accident and his subsequent loss of hearing to supplement, and thereby justify, the admission of Dr. Bernstein’s testimony that it was “possible” that the accident and the hearing loss were related. In my opinion, there was not.
Mr. Butler's loss of hearing occurred several months after his accident and immediately after a flight in a private airplane. The fact that Dr. Bernstein excluded plaintiff’s airplane ride as an alternative cause of his injury is not sufficient, in my opinion, to constitute additional evidence of a causal relationship between the accident and the injury. This is not a case such as Ideal Food Products Co. v. Rupe, 76 Ariz. 175, 261 P.2d 992 (1953), wherein the injury could only be caused by trauma or injury. In the present action the doctor stated that nerve damage to the ear, such as that from which the plaintiff suffers, could be caused by a variety of factors and that the specific factor could seldom be ascertained in any particular case.
*400The plaintiffs own testimony that the whiplash he suffered in the accident caused his deafness could have no probative value whatsoever. As noted by Dr. Bernstein, such a statement by a patient immediately after an accident might be probative. However, when made months after the accident, as here, I submit that its evidentiary value as to causation is completely lost, and the question obviously becomes one exclusively within the realm of medical expertise.
Given the length of time between the accident and the time plaintiff’s deafness manifested itself, and the lack of competent evidence indicating a relationship between the two events, I feel the trial court acted wholly within its discretion in excluding Dr. Bernstein’s deposition. “Such gossamer speculation is the stuff from which dreams are made and not the foundation stone for an action in negligence. Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99, 59 A.L.R. 1253 [1928].” Morris v. Ortiz, 103 Ariz. 119, 121, 437 P.2d 652, 654 (1968).
I would affirm.