Milburn v. Foster

ROTH, J.,

pro

tem.

In this action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by respondent as result of being struck by an automobile operated by defendant Lucille Foster with permission of the owner, appellant J. Arthur Foster, upon request of appellant, a doctor was appointed for the purpose of giving medical testimony. After some preliminary questions, the court said to the doctor: “Now, will you state to the jury what your examination consisted of and what you found as a result of your examination?” In the course of his testimony, the doctor referred to some matters clearly. hearsay which could not be properly classified as

[480]

medical history within the rule announced in

Sherwood

v.

Thomas,

124 Cal. App. 450 [12 Pac. (2d) 676], and which testimony may be conceded to be inadmissible, and also repeated a statement made to him by respondent as to the manner in which the accident happened, which statement was also inadmissible.

(St. Louis etc. Ry. Co.

v.

Williams,

108 Ark. 387 [158 S. W. 494].) Appellants, however, made no objection to any of the statements made by the doctor, nor did they make any motions striking any portions of his testimony of which they now complain and to which they direct this court’s attention. Under such circumstances, appellants cannot now be heard to complain.

(Perry

v.

McLaughlin,

212 Cal. 1, 6 [297 Pac. 554].) Furthermore, the inadmissible matters to which our attention has been directed are of so little importance that had objections or motions been properly made and overruled or denied, there would be no showing of such error as to warrant a reversal of the judgment.