Show t RIGHT G OF DOCTOR TO BE A WITNESS Supreme Court Hands Down Decision Concerning Privileged Privileged Privileged Communications JUSTICE DISSENTS MAJORITY OF THE JUDGES DE DECIDE DECIDE DECIDE CIDE AGAINST PLAINTIFF Tho The right of a physician to testify re regarding regarding regarding garding the injuries of his hs patient is dis discussed discussed cussed in a supreme court opinion handed down yesterday The decision de is In favor of the Utah Light Railway company company inthe In Inthe inthe the damage suit filed flied by N P Madsen Justices J 3 E Frick and W WM WIt WaL M aL It McCarty agree In affirming the de decision decision decision of a Jury in Judge M L court but a dissenting opinion is written by Chief Justice D N Madsen who is 63 years old brought suit against the Utah Light Railway company for damages for a fall while alighting from a Wandamere street streetcar streetcar streetcar car at Ninth South and Seventh East streets on April 13 1907 1007 He had told the conductor to stop at Ninth South street and when the car started to slacken speed he went to the rear stepped down and was Va ready to step off when the car started forward again causing him to fall off otto Ills His hip was injured The com company company company pany notified Dr J C who sent Dr E to attend Madsen Dr saw Madsen that evening made a hurried Investigation and ob obtained obtained obtained a signed statement from Madsen regarding the manner in which the in injuries Injuries Injuries juries were sustained The next day Dr accompanied Dr to see Madsen When the damage suit came to trial the street car company placed both doc doctors doctors doctors tors on the stand against the objections of attorneys who claimed that the testimony from these professional men came under privileged communications The signed statement especially was objected to Judge Ritchie allowed all Of this evidence Supreme Justices Frick and McCarty take the position that privileged com communications must depend upon circum circumstances circumstances stances for their admission and that in inthis inthis this case differing In many points from damage suits the trial court did not err errIn errIn errin In allowing the testimony of ot the physicians clans dans and the signed statement The point is made by each that the Jury was fid not prejudiced one way or the theether ether ither bv by the of the slimed signed statement as WI the Jury found the company was not negligent If It the Jury had returned a verdict for Madsen Justice Frick says then he would have had the right to urge the point that the admission of the written statement prejudiced his case But as the Jury found no liability on the part of tho the company it Is 15 held that the extent of his injuries is Irrelevant Dissenting Chief Justice Str up takes the position that the evidence in this case comes under privileged communications as Dr went to Madsen the evening he was was hurt to see how badly he was injured and prescribe for film nim lat later later later er bringing Dr into the case Chief Justice holds that the trial court erred In allowing this evidence to be brought in and also regarding the signed statement which Madsen said he could not remember about as he was only anI half halt conscious the night of the visit of Dr It is also held by tho the chief justIce that the evidence plainly showed negligence on the part of the company He believes the Judgment should be reversed and the I case remanded The fact that two Jus Justices justices justices I tices affirm Judge Ritchie however writes finis on the Madsen suit |