Varley v. Motyl

While I agree that there was error in the case of Hilma Yarley, I disagree with the majority view that there was error in the case of John Yarley, calling for the restoration of the verdict and judgment thereon for him. It is my conclusion that the court committed reversible error in that ease, as claimed by the defendants’ bill of exceptions, in allowing John, hereinafter called the plaintiff, to testify to aggravation of a pre-existing heart condition as an element of damage and that, in *136consequence, by setting aside the verdict it reached the correct result.

The majority opinion correctly…