Walters v. Smith

Hammond, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Helen Walters, the plaintiff in a personal injury case below, appeals from a judgment for the defendants for costs following the direction of a verdict for defendants at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case. Mrs. Walters had suffered previous head injuries which had occasioned headaches, dizziness and speech difficulties. In 1951 a diagnosis was a carotid artery smaller than normal, which caused a markedly impaired blood supply to the brain.

An operation was performed designed to dilate the arteries in the left side of her brain and establish circulation. There followed a complete occlusion of the carotid artery and Mrs. Walters suffered partial paralysis of the right side and aphasia. After the operation she gradually improved over the years. She no longer needed a brace for her leg, and her speech was almost normal.

Dr. Spence, one of the two surgeons who ⁶⁴ performed the 1951 operation, saw her in March, 1957, to evaluate her ability to enter a rehabilitation school to study to become a secretary. He said she was then cheerful, mentally alert with good movement and strength in the right arm, able to flex her right foot, exhibiting good memory patterns and she had no complaints of skull or back pains. His opinion was that she was both mentally and physically suitable to undertake rehabilitation measures to prepare her for return to useful employment. In May, 1957, Mrs. Walters, while riding in an automobile driven by one of the defendants and owned by the other, was injured when the car was in a collision with another automobile.

She was thrown against the front seat, hurting her right foot and ankle and her right shoulder and snapping her neck. After the accident she saw a doctor for her foot injury—it was swollen and painful—and X-rays were taken which showed no fracture. The diagnosis was a sprain and treatment was prescribed. Thereafter, Mrs. Walters began to have severe headaches and dizzy spells and then lost her ability to talk, was nervous and could not add, subtract or do her housework.

Dr. Spence testified he saw her in June, 1957, and that on his advice she entered Georgetown Hospital, where stellate ganglion blocks were done to increase the sympathetic blood supply to the brain. Her speech improved as did her neck pain, although months later her right arm and leg were considerably affected and her headaches continued. Dr. Spence was then asked a full hypothetical question (conceded to be proper by appellees) that embodied Mrs. Walters’ prior history of accidents, prior symptoms, the details of the accident and the subsequent physical and mental symptoms and their treatment, and in answer said: “I feel the accident materially aggravated the situation which she had and caused these symptoms for which I treated her.” He then gave as the basis of his opinion her good condition before the accident, the bad condition after the accident, and the snapping of her neck in the accident which caused an impairment in her already weakened circulatory system and brought about “the disturbances of speech and other functions of the left side of her ⁶⁵ brain which affected her right arm and leg and aggravated the pre-existing condition.” On cross-examination Dr. Spence said that Mrs. Walters’ background made it reasonable to foresee that over the years her symptoms would become worse or repeat themselves. The trial judge decided that this answer made the case one in which the results that followed the accidents could have been caused either by the accident, for which the defendants were responsible, or solely by the pre-existing condition for which they were not, and felt the jury should not be permitted to speculate.

We find the ruling to have been wrong. The case should have gone to the jury. It is not claimed that the negligence of the defendants was not at least a jury question. The appellees’ claim is that the negligence