Capital Traction Co. v. Hoover
Capital Traction Co. v. Hoover
Opinion of the Court
of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, who sat with the Court in the hearing and determination of this appeal in the place of Mr. Justice Van Orsdel, delivered the opinion of the Court:
Without reviewing the evidence in detail in this opinion, it is sufficient to say that the request for a peremptory instruction, either upon the claim of variance between the pleadings and proof, or upon the claim of insufficient evidence to be submitted to the jury, is wholly without support, and that the instruction granted by the learned justice below and constituting the subject of appellant’s second assignment was clearly proper, as was also his refusal to grant the instruction involved in the fourth assignment.
2. The only other question involved in the appeal is that raised by the first assignment of error, relating to the refusal of the learned trial justice to permit counsel for appellant to see and inspect a.paper (exhibit Jackson 2), which was shown by counsel for appellee to the witness Jackson, while upon the witness stand and in the presence of the jury, and identified and also read by the witness, but which was not offered in evidence. The record shows that this occurred at the close of the redirect
The judgment below is affirmed, with costs.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- CAPITAL TRACTION COMPANY v. HOOVER
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Street Railways; Negligence; Variance; Instructions to Jury; Direction of Verdict; Prejudicial Error; Examination of Witnesses. 1. Where the declaration in an action against a street railway company to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff while a passenger charges • that the company’s ear had been stopped in order to permit the plaintiff and his family, including his daughter, to alight, and that while the plaintiff was on the platform assisting his daughter to alight, the car was accidentally started throwing the plaintiff to the ground and injuring him, it is not error for the trial court to instruct the jury that if the plaintiff had alighted from the ear and then boarded it again while it was still at rest to assist his daughter to alight, and while the plaintiff was in the act of returning to the car for that purpose and before he could again alight from it with his daughter-, and while he and his daughter were attempting to do so, the car was started and the plaintiff thrown to the ground and injured, he is entitled to recover; nor is it error in such a case for. the court to refuse to direct a verdict for the defendant where the evidence supports the plaintiff’s declaration, or to refuse to instruct the jury at the defendant’s request that the plaintiff cannot recover •unless he had actually taken his daughter in his arms before the car was started. Note. — As to duty of street car conductor to see that passenger is off before starting car, see note in 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 140. As to negligence in starting street ear with jerk while passenger is alighting, see notes in 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 891, and 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 225. 2. While prejudicial error cannot be predicated upon refusal of the trial court to permit, counsel for the defendant to see and inspect a paper shown a witness for the plaintiff and read by him while on the witness stand at the close of the redirect examination of the witness but not/ offered in evidence, where the brief recross-examination of the witness was of such a nature as not to be affected thereby,— the correct practice is to permit opposing counsel to see any paper shown to and read by any witness while upon the stand, although this is not required where the paper is merely identified by the witness, and not read by him.