Stewart & Co. v. Howell

Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Adam J. Howell, husband and father of appellees, while working for 'Stewart & Oo. in their building, at the corner1 of Howard and Lexington Streets, Baltimore, on March 4th, 1918, was struck by a heavy board which slipped while being drawn up by another workman. The board was caught by the foreman but he could not hold it and the end struck Howell in the chest between the shoulder and the heart. The immediate effect of thei blow was to cause him to stop work that afternoon for a time variously estimated at from twenty minutes to two hours, at the expiration of which time he returned to, work and continued to work the rest of that afternoon and through the night.

When he returned to his home on the morning' after the accident he showed his wife the place where he was injured. There wasi a bruise on his left side just above the heart. He told her “he was in great pain, and he was very sick, and that he was injured, and that he never could get over it, he says ‘I can never live.’ ” The widow further testified that her husband was perfectly healthy prior to the accident, and was never sick; that he had never had any doctors and worked every day; that he was always strong and healthy, and could work in any kind of weather; never made any complaint, but would eat three meals a day and sleep, well at night; that he had been well ⁴²⁹ all the time until he was injured, but after the injury he suffered a great deal; that he could not sleep at night at all; could not sit still or lie down but just a short time. This was all the time for the last week before he died; prior to the last week he suffered a great deal, could, not, sleep; his ap>peitite was poor, and he was complaining all the time; that, after the accident he went back to Stewart’s and worked there for about two weeks, and after that worked a few days at other places, the last place being on Baltimore Street, where he was taken sick the last time.

He died at the University Hospital on Mlay 26th. Mrs. Elizabeth Francois, a nurse at Stewart and Gompany’s testified that Howell came to, her before the accident “complaining of a pain in the side, right through, his back and chest, and had a very bad cough”; he was coming up to her about three weeks before the accident. Several doctors testified that Howell died of an aneurism of the aorta, and that in their opinion the aneurism was present before the accident, and that the accident had practically nothing' whatever to do with the rupture so far1 as they could see from its description, and judging from the time of the accident to the time of death. It is not perfectly clear, however, from their testimony that the blow might not have hastened the result.

Dr. L. B. Evans, who treated Howell after the accident, testified that his examination showed that the disease! from which Howell died was not of long standing, but was! the result of the blow which he had received on the chest; that it was a traumatic aneurism, assuming the correctness of the medical chart offered in evidence showing aortic aneurism to have been the cause of death. The decision of the Industrial Accident Commission on. practically the same testimony as wasi offered on the appeal to the Baltimore City Court was against the claimants,, which decision was reversed by the Oity Court, from which this appeal was taken. ⁴³⁰ There are twelve hills of exceptions!. The first six are to the overruling1 of objections to questions and refusal to strike .out answers of the widow of Howell in regard to his feelings as expressed by him to her on his return home after the accident. We find no error in these rulings.

The seventh was to the following question propounded to ;Dr. L. B. Evans: “Keeping in mind your physical examination of Howell, when you saw him professionally, when you made the. extensive physical examination of hisi body, and knowing now what the chart gives you of his death and the causes which led immediately to his death, I would like you to tell the jury whether or not in your opinion a traumatic aneurism could have resulted from that injury?” Assuming the question to be open to' the objection that it .asks for a speculative opinion asi to what might have been the effect of the injury rather than the doctor’s judgment as to .what its effect really was, such error was cured by the answer-of the doctor which was as follows: “Of course, it was .the only conclusion that could be drawn. The man gave a ■.negative history of any of the diseases that produce pathological. aneurismsi Therefore I could not assume that he had pathological aneurisms from diseases which did not exist, ■never existed. H'e gave the history of an injury which was capable of producing a traumatic aneurism by the force being transmitted to the chest in sufficient volume to produce rupture of one' or more of the coats of the artery, giving rise to this particular type of aneurism, a traumatic aneurism. It was the only conclusion I could draw.” • ' The answer shows that the' doctor thought he was being asked what in his judgment caused the aneurism, and not what the question really asked.

As understood by him the ■question-was unobjectionable, and therefore there was no reversible error. The eighth exception was to -the question immediately following the above. It was leading, but did no harm as it practically embodied what the doctor had said in his previous ⁴³¹ answer. Of course the practice of repeating testimony of witnesses, by counsel isi not to be .encouraged, but there was no reversible error here.

The tenth exception is, to the refusal of the Court to permit a witness to answer a question, the substance of which was embraced in a later question, objection to which was overruled — consequently no harm was done. The eleventh exception is to the overruling of defendants’ objection to the following question asked Dr. L. B. Evans in rebuttal: “There seems to be, Doctor, some difference of opinion among the doctors here representing the defendants on the question. Assume that the man did have a pre-existing aneurism and received the blow1 which Mr. Howell is said to have received, what effect would that blow have upon hastening the trouble, with the patient?” We think the objection was properly overruled. This