
    Ellen Swenson, by Guardian, etc., Resp’t. v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, App’lt.
    
      (Brooklyn City Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed December 23, 1895.)
    
    Evidence—Expert.
    In an action for personal injuries to a child eight years old, medical testimony as to the various causes of disease alleged to have resulted from plaintiff’s injury, and some of its possible results, without alluding to its probable effect on the plaintiff, is inadmissible, and if admitted, should he stricken out. .
    Appeal from a judgment entered on' a verdict in favor -of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
    Moore, Wallace & Dudley, for app’lt;
    Ernest M. Welch, for resp’t.
   OSBORNE, J.

An action to recover damages for injury to plaintiff, a child eight years old, caused through defendant’s negligence. On the trial, defendant’s negligence was admitted, and also plaitiff’s freedom from contributory negligence; so that the only question litigated was the extent of plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff had a verdict for $4,000, and from the judgment entered thereon, and the order denyiny a motion for a new trial, defendant apeals.

On the trial, an expert witness, called on behalf of plaintiff to give evidence as to the extent of plaintiff’s injuries, having testified, inter alia, that the plaintiff had chorea, was asked the following question:

“Q. from your examination, state the treatment and the course of chorea in her (plaintiff’s) case—what it will be—the best way you can. Defendants counsel: I object to the question, as irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent, and that there is no .connection shown between the injury in this case and the ‘chorea,’ so called, and your honor will note my exception. The Court: The exception will be noted. Answer the question. Defendant’s counsel: How can he tell the course of something that has not happened? The Court: What will be the course, from his knowledge as an expert, of the disease? Defendant’s counsel: I object to that, on the ground that an expert is incompetent to testify .to the future course of the dicease. The witness: The disease chorea, and the allied diseases, of which there are several .of the same kind, are caused by irritation of the brain. This irritation may be the result of injuries to the head, of shock, of fright, or a poisoned condition of the brain resulting from different fevers, —from the poison of typhoid, or diphtheria, or scarlet fever, or diseases of that kind. When the irritation has reached a certain point, then these motion begin, usually in the bands, and spread to different parts of .the body, and in time may become general, so that all the muscles of the body, the anus, legs, and face, are in a state of motion. The effect of this irritation ialso injures the brain. It is not at all uncommon to see cases of chorea who are stupid, and almost on the verge of idiocy. How, in regard to the ultimate results of the disease,—that is, as to its being able to be cured,—we usually find that simple chorea, not due to any organic injury of the brain, is quite curable, bjit where we have to deal with an organic disease of the brain,— where injuries of the brain have ossurred which cannot be cured by any means,—there the chorea persists and remains with the patient. They cannot get rid of it, and it lasts for life, with a progressive mental degeneration as well as the muscular movements. Defendant’s counsel: I move to strike out in regard to chorea arising from injury to the brain organically, as having no connection with this ease whatever, and because his testimony is not ’confined, to results in. this case. He is giving general lectures.”

The motion was denied, and defendant’s counsel excepted^

We are of the opinion that the motion to strike out should have-been granted, and that the exception to the refusal so to do was. well taken. The question put by plaintiff’s counsel, and as modified or amended by the court, substantially called upon 'the witness to state, from his knowledge ’as an expert, the treatment and what would be the course of chorea in plaintiff’s case. We think that the question itself whs a proper one to put, but we look in vain in the answer for the slightest allusion to the plaintiff’s case to which the question was addressed. The witness, seems to have entered into a general discussion of the disease known as “chorea,”, the various causes producing it, and some of the possible ultimate results thereof. Nowhere does the witness state or intimate or express an opinion as to what the course of the disease would be in plaintiff’s case, or the probability or improbability of her recovery. On the contrary, the witness’ answer was confined to the possible effects attending the progress' of the disease in general, and its probable duration, and the result that might ensue to some other person or other afflicted with the disease, and those results dependent on the producing cause of the disease. We cannot say that this evidence did not' prejudice-the defendant, or influence the amount of the verdict. It improperly placed, before the jury results that might ensue, future consequences that were possible, and it would be most natural that the jury in estimating the damage to plaintiff,- should take .these elements into consideration in fixing the amount of the verdict. Strohm v. Railroad Co., 96 N. Y. 305; Tozer v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 105 id. 617; 8 St. Rep. 56. This conclusion renders it unnecessary to consider any other exception in the case.

¡For the reasons stated, we think that the judgment and order denying motion for a new trial should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. =  