Medical evidence and the laws relating to compensation for injury / by R.J. Collie.

  • Collie, Robert John.
Date:
1909
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Medical evidence and the laws relating to compensation for injury / by R.J. Collie. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    22/42 (page 18)
    London. The plaintiff was suing a dentist for damages for the loss of 11 tooth, the dentist having taken out the wrong one. The plaintiff further alleged that serious hremorrhage followed ; in fact he said, “ My mouth filled so quickly, and 1 was losing so much blood, that at last I dare not expectorate any more.” Another instance will make my meaning clear:— A claim was brought against the London County Council by a man who was slowly dying from aortic regurgitation. The allegation was that he had sniffed an evil sinell in one of the main sewers, and that the heart trouble was the result. The hypertrophy of the left ventricle was obviously of over a year’s duration (this was admitted by the man's own doctor), whereas the enteritis, it was allowed, had undoubtedly occurred only some six months before the trial. On cross- examination,the counsel asked me whether the heart trouble, was “single or double.” I replied that 1 did not understand the question, and asked what he meant. It was quite obvious that he himself did not know what he meant, and that he had been very loosely instructed. He merely repeated the question, and insisted upon an answer. My answer was that it was “single.” Now, had I declined to answer, the effect would not have been good ; whereas, since something “ double ” had been suggested, it was just as well to cut it down to “ single,” especially as neither of us knew what he was talking about. You must make up your mind definitely before you go into the witness box what your view of the case really is; how much you may concede, while conserving the interests of justice. Then, be strong; let no amount of bullying, no amount of insinuation, no amount of subtle craftiness, make you swerve from your fixed view of what you know to Joe the facts. When you have deliberately made a statement which you know to be true, or given an opinion which youjionestly believe to be correct, do not allow counsel in cross-examination to worry you into contradicting yourselves. In speaking of the giving of evidence by medical men, it is to be remembered that most frequently they are called on, not like ordinary witnesses, to speak of occurrences which they have actually seen, or of facts within their personal knowledge, but to act as expert or scientific witnesses, explaining how certain conditions or symptoms may have been caused, and pronouncing upon the actual existence or otherwise of latent ailments. In the performance of this delicate task the medical witness may, if he is not wary, become an easy prey to the, let us say, over-zealous cross-examiner, who is ready with some such question as “Doctor, you told us you thought so and so.” “ Now, doctor, tell us why you think