Appeal from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, No. 67-2291, in re Elsie Fay Corl v. Wiley F. Corl, Jr. and Phyllis H. Corl.
Thomas J. Burke, with him Haws & Burke, for appellant.
Lawrence A. Brown, with him McTighe, Brown, Weiss, Bonner & Stewart, for appellees.
Wright, P. J., Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, Cercone, and Packel, JJ. Opinion by Watkins, J.
[ 222 Pa. Super. Page 153]
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County entered on a verdict in a trespass action in favor of Elsie Fay Corl, the appellant-plaintiff, and against Wiley F. Corl, Jr. and Phyllis H. Corl, his wife, the defendant-appellees, in the sum of Fifteen Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00); and from the refusal of a new trial.
The action was brought by the plaintiff against her defendant-son and his wife. It arises out of an accident which occurred on premises owned by the son. On February 28, 1965, the plaintiff fell on a flagstone walk, built by the son, that had been partially undermined by him several days prior to the accident. She alleged that as a result of the fall, she sustained certain injuries including a herniated disc. The jury returned a verdict of Fifteen Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00).
At the time of the accident, the plaintiff, age 74, was a luncheon guest of her son. While walking on a flagstone walk leading to the rear door of his home, she
[ 222 Pa. Super. Page 154]
fell and "skinned both knees". Ten to twelve days later she consulted a doctor and on March 15 was admitted to the hospital, discharged, April 3, 1965 and readmitted, May 8, 1965 and discharged, May 21, 1965. While in the hospital, she had undergone what is commonly known as a disc operation. During the summer of that year, she went to Europe and spent the better part of a month on a bus tour of Russia. The following October, she was in the hospital with another disc operation.
The plaintiff complains of the testimony of a Dr. Martin Blaker in that his opinion should have been excluded because he assumed in answer to a hypothetical question facts not supported by the record and based upon hospital records not in evidence.
In the hypothetical question answered by Dr. Blaker, he was asked to assume that the back pains commenced immediately after the fall. He then testified that in his opinion there was causal connection. He was then asked to assume that the back pains did not commence until approximately ten to twelve days after the fall. His answer was under such a state of facts there would be no causal connection.
The opinion medical testimony of the plaintiff was to the effect that her injuries were caused by the fall. The plaintiff vigorously contends that the above question was improper in that there was no substantive evidence that the ...