Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Martin

Citations

• 112 Ill. 16
• 1 N.E. 111

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence—in suit for personal injury—to show the plaintiff suffered pain from the injury. On the trial in an action for a personal injury, the plaintiff called his attending physician, who testified that he had examined the plaintiff, who stated the symptoms, and that he had suffered pain. The witness was then asked whether the plaintiff was feigning or “making believe,” to which he answered, “No, sir; I know he did not, from examination and tests:” Held, that, with the explanation as to his means of knowledge, there was no error in the admission of the evidence. The answer could only be understood as a deduction or conclusion from the examination and tests made.</p> <p>2. In such a case, the attending physician, having every means of observing the symptoms, may be asked if the patient suffered pain, and his answer in the affirmative can be considered only as an opinion based upon actual facts and tests. It does not even require an expert to know the existence of pain from the nature of the injury and the patient’s outward manifestations.</p>