Becker v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Citations

• 245 Pa. 462
• 91 A. 861
• 1914 Pa. LEXIS 898

Syllabus

<p>Practice, C. P. — Address to jury — Improper remarks by counsel —Evidence—Hypothetical questions — Negligence—Street railways.</p> <p>1. In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries, where counsel for the plaintiff in his address to tbe jury in referring to the expert testimony of the physician called .as a witness by defendant, who had examined plaintiff, and whose testimony had not been impeached, said: “Will you believe the testimony of the physician for the transit company, whose business it is to minimize injuries?” and upon motion by counsel for the defendant for the withdrawal of a juror, ■and continuance of the ease, further said: “I stand upon that” the remarks were improper.</p> <p>2. Where in such case an expert medical witness, who had examined plaintiff, was asked by plaintiff’s counsel over defendant’s objection: “Will you give us the results of each examination after-wards; when you saw her and give us the results of each,” and “taking the history of the ease as given to you, and the evidence that you have heard here, would you be able to state as to what is the cause, of her condition as you found it at the present time, or as you found it in May, 1911,” the questions were hypothetical, and should have been framed in accordance with the well defined rules applicable to such questions and it was error for the court to permit the witness to testify in reply thereto.</p>