doctor had "speaking authority!' for hospital
How later courts described this case
- doctor had "speaking authority!' for hospital
- "[0]ur decision in Miller v. Kennedy . . . abandoned the ZeBarth case in this regard"
- "[O]ur decision in Miller v. Kennedy ... abandoned the ZeBarth case in this regard"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Wright, J.
(concurring) — I have signed the well-written opinion by Justice Hunter. I wish, however, to add this brief concurrence to discuss one feature which was raised, although only briefly discussed.
The question relates to a correction in an answer given during the taking of a deposition. That matter is fully discussed by Justice Hunter in Seattle-First Nat’l Bank v. Rankin, 59 Wn.2d 288 , 367 P.2d 835 (1962). The conclusion, supported by both text and case authority, is stated at page 294 wherein 4 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 30.20 (2d ed.) is quoted. In part, it states:
it is important that the original testimony appear in the deposition as well as the changed testimony, so that if the deposition is used at the trial, a true picture will be presented. . . .
Petition for rehearing denied June 17, 1975.