Vonceil Jordan brought suit against Santa Fe Engineering, Inc. (“Santa Fe”), The Waldinger Corporation, and Koch Industries, Inc. (“Koch”), to recover damages fоr the wrongful death of her husband, under theories of negligence and strict liability. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, and Jordan brings this appeal fоllowing the denial of her motion for a new trial.
Evidence adduced at trial showed that the U. S. Corps of Engineers contracted with an architecturаl firm for the design of a new hospital at Fort Stewart, Georgia. Following the approval of the architectural plans, Santa Fe was awardеd the general contract for construction of the hospital. Waldinger was the mechanical subcontractor, and installed an acid neutrаlization sump, manufactured by Koch, at the hospital. The sump was necessary to neutralize and provide safe disposal for various acids and chemicals used in laboratories at the hospital which may be harmful if disposed of through normal channels.
The decedent, John Jordan, was employed by the hospital’s maintenance contractor, E. C. Corporation, as a shift supervisor, supervising a crew that cleaned the laborаtory area. In early October 1984, the drainage system in the laboratory area leading to the tank became clogged and overflowed. Thе decedent had some contact with the overflowed material during the course of his duties, as did other E. C. employees, but E. C. employee Willie Johnson had primary responsibility for cleaning the area. On several days during and immediately following the decedent’s exposure to the overflow mаterial and *601 prior to his death, he exhibited increasingly severe signs of illness, including respiratory difficulties, gastrointestinal and renal problems, and neurolоgical deficit and confusion.
During appellant’s case in chief, she presented the testimony of Dr. William Anderson, a medical doctor who was qualified as an expert in pathology. In response to a hypothetical question positing the above information as well as the fact that Jоhnson had not become ill, and that the decedent had been taking the drug Antabuse, Dr. Anderson testified that, in his opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, based on the course of the signs exhibited by the decedent (as related primarily by appellant), and the many organs involvеd, “exposure to one or more toxic materials that were absorbed in his body, caused the damage.” The defendants presented the testimony of Dr. William McDonald, an expert with a Ph.D. degree in toxicology and pharmacology. Dr. McDonald opined, in contrast to the opinion of Dr. Anderson, that the decedent’s signs were consistent with “an Antabuse reaction on consumption of alcohol.”
1. Appellant contends the trial cоurt erred by refusing to allow the testimony of Dr. Keith Mitchum, proffered by appellant in rebuttal. The transcript reveals that immediately preceding the сommencement of the trial, appellees interposed an objection to the inclusion of Dr. Mitchum as a “may call” witness for appellant in the consolidated pretrial order signed and entered the day before, on the grounds that Dr. Mitchum had not been listed on the previous pretriаl order (which had not been signed) and appellees had not had the opportunity to depose him; and that at the parties’ pretrial conference the trial court had verbally ordered that no witnesses could be added after a date certain, and appellant had addеd Dr. Mitchum after that date. Despite the assurances of appellant’s counsel that Dr. Mitchum would be called in rebuttal and only if necessary to respond to testimony of appellees’ experts, and that a week before trial appellees had been offered the opportunity to depose Dr. Mitchum, the trial court indicated that it was inclined not to allow the witness, but it would entertain the request again after hearing appellees’ evidence.
At the close of appellees’ evidence, when appellant again sought to call Dr. Mitchum in rebuttal, the trial сourt adhered to its earlier ruling. In her offer of proof, appellant indicated that Dr. Mitchum would have been qualified as a medical expert, and that he would have testified that he was familiar with Antabuse and its effects, and that in his opinion, based on the timing of the physical signs exhibited by the decedеnt before his death, the cause of death was not an Antabuse reaction, but rather exposure to toxic substances present in the overflowed material.
Although questions of the admission of rebuttal evidence lie wholly within the sound discretion of the trial court, see
Hutto v.
*602
Shedd,
2. Because a new trial must be held, we address appellant’s remaining contentiоns of error which deal with evidentiary matters and jury charges, and may recur.
(a) “ ‘It is a fundamental rule in Georgia that jury instructions must be read and considered as a whole in determining whether the charge contained error. (Cits.)’ [Cit.]”
Clemons v. Atlanta Neurological Institute,
(b) We find no support in the transcript for appellant’s contention that Dr. McDonald was permitted to testify to medical opinions, which were beyond the scope of his expertise. Dr. McDonald hаd been qualified as a toxicologist and had explained that toxicology was the study of adverse actions of chemicals on the body. He was thus properly permitted to testify concerning the effect of certain substances, such as Antabuse, on the body, and was properly prevented from testifying as to whether the signs displayed by the decedent were consis
*603
tent with any other known physical problems. Accordingly, the principle set forth in
Southern R. Co. v. Cabe,
Judgment reversed.