(DOWNLOAD) "Adams v. Misener" by Supreme Court of Montana ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Adams v. Misener
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 09, 1942
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 68 KB
Description
Personal Injuries ? Automobile Accident ? Trial ? Injection of Matter of Indemnity Insurance ? Alleged Misconduct of Counsel ? Voluntary Statement of Witness and not in Answer to Question of Counsel ? Injection of Matter Into Trial Held not Reversible Error ? Verdicts ? When not Excessive ? Trial ? Continuance ? Discretion. Personal Injuries ? Automobile Accident ? Trial ? Continuance ? When Refusal of Motion not Abuse of Discretion. 1. Where a personal injury action against the owner of a truck and its driver arising out of a collision, was not set for trial until some eighteen months after the accident, and the defendant owner moved that the setting be vacated for the term because of the serious illness of the driver preventing even the taking of his deposition, and counsel for plaintiff offered to dismiss the action against the driver claimed - Page 560 to be a material witness, and to stipulate that he (the absent witness) would testify as moving counsel stated he would in his affidavit in support of the motion, refusal to grant the motion held not an abuse of discretion under section 9332, Revised Codes, particularly where it appeared at the trial that the testimony of the witness would have been merely cumulative in all material respects of that of other witnesses for the defendant. Same ? Trial ? Injection of Matter Relating to Indemnity Insurance ? Exception to Rule Making it Reversible Error. 2. While it is almost universally recognized by courts that where defendant in a personal injury case is protected by indemnity insurance against liability for damages, that fact cannot directly or indirectly be injected into the case by evidence, argument or remarks so as to influence the jury, and violation of the rule ordinarily constitutes reversible error, there are exceptions to it, one of them being where a witness voluntarily, i.e., not in response to a question by counsel ? injects the matter, and the trial court acts promptly in admonishing the jury to disregard the objectionable statement, in each instance, however, the controlling question being how and under what circumstances the matter was brought into the case. Same ? Trial ? Witness Voluntarily bringing Up Matter of Insurance in Answering Question not Calling for Such Answer ? What Does not Constitute Misconduct of Counsel. 3. Where, in an action for personal injuries arising out of a collision of two motor trucks, the wife of plaintiff, substituted as such after her husbands death occurring during the pendency of the action, was asked by her counsel on the witness stand whether the deceased, after having been confined to the home for a long time, had not been taken to the office of a certain physician, to which she replied in the affirmative; whereupon the further question was asked whether he had not been taken to another doctors office, to which she replied, "Yes, the insurance company for Mr. M. [her husband] sent to have their doctor ? ", her counsel at that point interrupting her and moving the court to strike the statement as not responsive, the court promptly directing the jury to disregard the statement, its finding in passing upon defendants motion for new trial, denying it and exonerating counsel from alleged misconduct in asking the question intentionally, approved. Same ? Damages, What Does not Constitute Excessive Verdict. 4. Verdict, in an action for personal injuries and for damaging plaintiffs truck occasioned by a collision on the highway, in favor of plaintiff, a man 64 years of age, not in robust health before the accident and not physically able to conduct his business for about ten months thereafter when he died, for $3,500 general damages, $490 loss of earnings and $198 for damage to the truck, a total of $4,188, held not excessive, but well within what has been generally considered a reasonable amount under similar facts and circumstances.
 "Adams v. Misener" by Supreme Court of Montana ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}