INGRAM V. MCCUISTON
261 N.C. 392, 134 S.E.2d 705 (1964)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a personal injury action. Appealed. McCuiston (Ds), a minor
driver and her mother, appealed a ruling, which overruled Ds' objections to a six-page
hypothetical question propounded by Ingram (P) injured person to an orthopedic surgeon, and
to a question that incorporated the hypothetical question by reference.
FACTS: Ingram (P) was injured in a three-car collision involving herself and McCuiston
(D). As a result of the accident, P sustained injuries to her neck and back. She also
underwent psychiatric treatment for anxiety allegedly caused by the accident. P's
orthopedist and psychiatrist both testified at trial. Miller, the orthopedist, testified on
the basis of a series of hypothetical facts provided by P's counsel during the examination.
P's counsel then asked Miller questions regarding his opinion as to whether such facts could
have left P permanently injured, both physically and emotionally. Miller expressed an
opinion that P could have suffered 'permanent anxiety.' D objected to the testimony on the
grounds that 1) the hypothetical question contained facts which were not in evidence, and 2)
the question was based in part on the opinion of Wright, P's psychiatrist.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment