167 So. 721 | Ala. | 1936
Lead Opinion
The suit was for personal injuries and damages, the result of a collision on the public highway.
Plaintiff propounded interrogatories to the defendant under the statute, section 7764, Code 1923. Answers to the interrogatories propounded thereunder are in the nature of discovery of "material testimony" in the cause, and the interrogating party only has the option of offering the same in evidence at the trial. If such party so elects, he "must offer the whole, and cannot select the answers or parts of answers suited to his purpose" (Alabama Power Co. v. Bodine,
We find no error in permitting the several questions to and answers by Dr. Hill. He was qualified as an expert, and as such, may testify as to the meaning of the X-ray pictures introduced in evidence, and the extent and effect of such injuries. The sufficiency of a witness' efficiency in knowledge of a subject, to qualify him as an expert to testify, is largely within the discretion of the trial court. Watson et al. v. Hardaway-Covington Cotton Co.,
The trial court properly sustained defendant's objection to plaintiff's effort to give in evidence the fact of his prospective employment. This is not within the rule of recovery for loss of a definite earning power or wages or income. Davis, Director General of Railroads, v. Smitherman,
There was no error, under the evidence, in overruling the motion for a new trial.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and BROWN, and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
Addendum
The element of damages as to prospective employment being stricken from the amendment to the complaint, we are impressed counsel for plaintiff were merely trying to present and reserve exception to the ruling as to such damages on introduction of evidence, in order to avoid any question concerning the right to recover the same under the complaint as framed before the amendment and without regard to that amendment. This action of counsel and rulings of the court on several questions propounded were not within the rule of Birmingham Baptist Hospital v. Blackwell,
The motion for a new trial was properly refused on the ninth ground thereof, and the application for rehearing is overruled.
Application overruled.
ANDERSON, C. J., and BROWN and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.