Mt. Royal Cab Co. v. Dolan

Parke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal on this record is from a judgment of $4,000 recovered by the plaintiff against the defendants for injuries received by the plaintiff, while on a business trip to Baltimore, in the collision of the automobiles, of the parties. The negligence of the defendants is admitted, and the ⁵⁸³ issue submitted to the jury was the amount of the compensation to be found for the injuries sustained. The questions presented for review are in three bills of exceptions.

The first is with respect to the admission of the opinion of a medical expert; the second is as to the rejection of the prayer of the defendants that the jury could not award the plaintiff any damages for permanent injuries; and the third is the refusal of the trial court to award a new trial because, of the allegation that the aggregate of the several amounts of damages favored by every juror was divided by the number of the jurors and the quotient was the amount of the verdict rendered by the jury. 1. The plaintiff was injured on January 28th, 1933, and went the next day to the office of Dr. Arthur L. Fehsenfeld, who examined the plaintiff with reference to the injuries inflicted, and found him extremely nervous and suffering great pain, particularly at the back of his neck and across his shoulders, which was due to the inflammation of these muscles as a result of their having been strained or sprained. A careful examination did not reveal any damage to bone. There was no swelling, no bruises, nor visible evidence of the injury.

The doctor treated the patient, but the situation and activei function of the muscles affected in continually holding the body and head erect made it impracticable to immobilize the parts involved so as to give the muscles sufficient rest during their healing period, which, if immobilization had been possible, would have been a probable period of ten days to three weeks. The doctor saw the patient again on February 7th, 8th, and 9th, 1933. Under the conditions described, in which the parts could not be immobilized, it was difficult to' estimate what would be a reasonable period for healing, and the doctor said he would not attempt to say how long it would take for a complete recovery from the injuries sustained. The doctor did not see the plaintiff again professionally.

The trial was on September 27th, 1933, and Dr. Fehsenfeld was the first witness called. After the witness had testi ⁵⁸⁴ fled in substance to what has been stated, counsel for the plaintiff asked the question: “What, in your opinion, based on your experience, would have been the probable result in this patient of the conditions found to exist when you examined him last January and February ?” In an action for the recovery of damages for personal injuries suffered subsequent -to the commission of the wrong, the recovery is limited to those consequences which have actually and naturally ensued the tort, or which may certainly or reasonably and probably result as a proximate consequence of the act, but not consequences which are merely possible, and so speculative or conjectural. The plaintiff had offered no testimony except that of the doctor who examined him the day after the accident, and who had been last consulted professionally in February on the plaintiff’s business trip to Baltimore. The doctor had already fully testified, to the extent permitted by the information which he had obtained from the plaintiff’s history of the case, a physical examination, and the expert’s own qualifications.

A basis for further opinion evidence by the expert should have been, but was not, supplied. Although it had been seven months since the physician had seen the