# Baber v. John C. Knipp & Sons

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · January 18, 1933 · 164 Md. 55

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3490620

## Case

- **Full name:** Lucy J. Baber v. John C. Knipp & Sons Et Al.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** January 18, 1933
- **Citations:** 164 Md. 55; 163 A. 862; 1933 Md. LEXIS 9
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Boyd
- **Judges:** Boyd, Bond, Pattison, Adkins, Offutt, Digges, Parke, Sloan
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3490620

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that plaintiff, who sought to recover under WCA after her husband’s suicide, needed to prove “first, an accidental personal injury to her husband; and, second, that such injury was the proximate cause of his death,” id. at 865

## Opinion text

*69
Boyd, 0. J.,
filed a dissenting opinion as follows:
Inasmuch as the physician, whose opinion as to the cause of the insanity was excluded, attributed that insanity to the injury, on the ground that there was no evidence that it had existed before, and inasmuch as the record before the court, and on which the appeal was being heard, did contain evidence of its previous existence, I consider that the exclusion was proper. The opinion was based upon an assumption as obviously mistaken in fact as if all the evidence of the other witnesses had been read before the physician testified. And if it should be necessary that the propriety of the exclusion be tested by only so much of the record as had been read to the jury up to that point, it seems to me improper to reverse the judgment now when we see that the excluded opinion was based on the mistaken assumption.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3490620. Public record. Not legal advice.