Freel v. Market Street Cable Railway Co.

Citations

• 97 Cal. 40
• 31 P. 730
• 1892 Cal. LEXIS 752

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Action against Railway Company — Evidence — Order fob Delivery of Papers — Impeachment — Inconsistent Statement. — In an action against a railway company for damages for injuries received by the plaintiff because of the negligence of the defendant, it is proper for the court to compel the defendant’s counsel to deliver to plaintiff’s counsel a bundle of papers or package containing certain written statements of employees of the defendant in relation to the facts surrounding the occurrence which caused the plaintiff’s injury, where it appears that the bundle was in the court-room, in the possession of the defendant’s counsel, and that plaintiff’s counsel had been allowed to examine it, and desired to use it as a foundation to impeach the testimony of one of the defendant’s employees, who was a witness for the defendant, and who had made one of the statements which was at variance with his testimony.</p> <p>Id,—Evidence — Physician as Witness — Visit for Report to Dependant—Prescribing for Person Injured.—It is proper for a physician to testify, in an action for damages for personal injuries, as to information acquired by him of the physical condition of the party injured, if he has visited such injured party upon the suggestion of the defendant, and stated to her that he came there solely and entirely at the request of the defendant to ascertain the nature and character of her injuries, for the purpose of reporting them to the defendant, and confines his conduct to such examination and report; yet where it appears that he continued to visit and prescribe for her, and that the information acquired by him was obtained while visiting her at her request and prescribing for her, such evidence, if objected to by her, is properly excluded.</p>