Summary
In Rephann v. Armstrong, 217 Md. 90, 141 A.2d 525 (1958), a woman eight months pregnant was involved in an automobile accident and, as a result, suffered a miscarriage; the baby was born dead.
Summary of this case from Smith v. BorelloOpinion
[No. 298, September Term, 1957.]
Decided May 21, 1958.
EVIDENCE — Automobile Accident Inducing Miscarriage — Medical Testimony to Show That Death of Child and Miscarriage Resulted from Accident — X-Ray. In the instant action for injuries sustained as a result of an automobile accident which allegedly induced a miscarriage in the plaintiff, assuming that the testimony was admitted over objection, the physician who attended the plaintiff was properly allowed to exhibit to the jury an x-ray of her pelvis, to explain the bone structure of the mother and of the child, and to say that the child's bone structure indicated that the baby had died shortly after the accident and before the miscarriage. To prove damage on this aspect of the case, the plaintiff had to show that the death of the child and the miscarriage resulted from the accident and that the death did not come from an independent injury. p. 92
DAMAGES — Automobile Accident Inducing Miscarriage — Injuries Sustained by Wife and Husband Justified Verdicts in Their Favor — No Exception to Charge to Jury — Size of Verdict Rarely Reviewed. Where a wife and her husband brought actions for injuries sustained as a result of an automobile accident which allegedly induced a miscarriage in the wife, the injuries she sustained (both temporary and permanent), and the injuries to the legal rights of the husband, both clearly justified the amounts of the verdicts in their favor. Although it was contended that the amounts indicated that the jury awarded compensation for the loss of the baby, the jury was charged that it could not allow any damages for such loss. There was no exception to, nor a request to supply an omission in, the charge, as contemplated in Maryland Rules 554 d and 554 e, if alleged errors therein are to be considered on appeal. It was also noted that this Court on appeal almost never reviews the size of a verdict. pp. 92-93
APPEAL — None, from Denial of New Trial Sought on Ground That Verdicts Were Excessive. It is not the function or the right of the Court of Appeals to pass upon the trial court's denial of a new trial, sought on the ground that the verdicts returned were excessive. p. 93
J.E.B.
Decided May 21, 1958.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Allegany County (HARRIS, J.).
Actions by Betty Lee Armstrong and by Brownlee Armstrong, her husband, against William Rephann for damages for pain, suffering and permanent injuries sustained by Mrs. Armstrong, and for the medical expenses, other special damages and loss of consortium sustained by her husband, as a result of an automobile accident which allegedly induced a miscarriage. From judgments for plaintiffs entered on a jury's verdicts, defendant appeals.
Affirmed, with costs.
The cause was argued before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
William H. Geppert and Hugh A. McMullen, with whom were Gunter Geppert on the brief, for the appellant.
Earl Edmund Manges for the appellees.
The appellant, driver of an automobile that injured Mrs. Betty Lee Armstrong, appeals from a judgment in her favor for pain and suffering and permanent injury as well as from a judgment in favor of her husband for her medical expenses and other special damages, and loss of consortium. The accident induced a miscarriage. The errors complained of by the appellant are that the trial court wrongly admitted into evidence medical testimony relating to the death of the baby and that the jury must have awarded damage for the loss of the child, even though the court charged them that they could not do so.
Appellant concedes that the doctor who attended Mrs. Armstrong properly testified that she was eight months pregnant and that she suffered a miscarriage occasioned by the accident. He argues, however, that the doctor should not have been allowed to exhibit to the jury an x-ray of the mother's pelvis, to explain the bone structure of the mother and the child and to say that the child's bone structure indicated that the baby had died shortly after the accident, and before the miscarriage. There was no objection to the use of the x-ray and appellant's counsel did not in terms object to the testimony but did say he did not think it "proper". Treating the testimony as admitted over objection we see no error. To prove damage on this aspect of the case Mrs. Armstrong had to show that the death of the child and the miscarriage resulted from the accident and that the death did not come from independent injury. The doctor's testimony was relevant and pertinent on this issue.
The essence of appellant's complaint as to the amount of the verdicts is that they were excessive and that their amounts indicate that the jury awarded compensation for the loss of the baby. The court's charge told the jury that "You cannot allow any damages for the loss of the child." There was neither exception to the charge nor request to supply an omission in it as Maryland Rules 554 d and e contemplate if this Court is to consider alleged errors in a charge. Almost never is the size of a verdict a matter for review by this Court. In any event the injuries sustained by Mrs. Armstrong, both temporary and permanent, would seem clearly to have justified the amount of the verdict in her favor, and the same can be said for the injuries to the legal rights of the husband. The trial court refused a new trial sought on the ground that the verdicts were excessive, and it is not our function or right, even were we disposed to do so, to pass on his action in this respect.
Judgments affirmed, with costs.