Albert v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Citations

• 252 Pa. 527
• 97 A. 680
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 654

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railways — Medical testimony — Examination two years after accident — Failure of attending physicians to testify — Hypothetical questions — Plaintiff fainting in court — Motion for withdrawal of juror — Evidence—Charge.</p> <p>1. In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries, the fact that the only physicians testifying in plaintiff’s behalf at the trial were those who had made examinations more than two years subsequent to the accident, is not of itself ground for striking out their testimony for the reason that the connection between the accident and plaintiff’s present physical condition was not shown, where it appeared from the testimony of plaintiff and several other witnesses that prior to the accident plaintiff had enjoyed good health; that immediately thereafter she was removed to a hospital in an unconscious condition; was confined to bed six or eight weeks and was absent from her employment for some months and frequently since the time of the accident has been subject to recurrent convulsions, and the physicians who testified stated that in their opinion her ill health was due to the accident. Nor is the failure on the part of the plaintiff to call as witnesses several physicians who treated her for brief periods immediately following her accident sufficient ground for striking out such medical testimony introduced on the ground that no connection was shown to exist between the accident and the injury.</p> <p>2. The inference to be drawn from the failure to produce testimony is an inference of fact and not a presumption of law, and is for the jury.</p> <p>3. The general rule is that a hypothetical question should include a full statement of all material facts, if they are uncontradicted, or such facts as the interrogating party may reasonably deem established by the testimony of his witnesses, but should not assume facts not warranted by the evidence. If opposing counsel are of. opinion that m