Skip to main content
· 12/24/1901

Clukey v. Seattle Electric Co.

Citations

  • 27 Wash. 70
  • 67 P. 379
  • 1901 Wash. LEXIS 463

Syllabus

<p>CARRIERS - INJURY TO PASSENGER - EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER ALLEGATION OF DAMAGE.</p> <p>In an action to recover for personal injuries sustained by a woman while a passenger on a street car, evidence of the woman’s pregnancy and of a miscarriage produced as a result of the accident, together with the suffering and injury incident thereto is admissible, where the complaint, in addition to the general allegations of injury, alleges that she received internal injuries of a permanent nature, that she was hurt and injured in and about the breast, waist, and abdomen, and that she had unnatural internal bleeding.</p> <p>WITNESS- — -SCOPE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION.</p> <p>Where a question is not admissible as proper cross-examination, the fact that it is addressed to a plaintiff in the case while testifying as a witness would not change the rule, even if intended to elicit a circumstance against interest.</p> <p>SAME-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS-READING FROM AUTHORITIES.</p> <p>In the cross-examination of medical experts for the purpose of testing their knowledge, it is not error for counsel, in asking whether the authorities do not lay down certain rules, to read such rules from the books themselves as stated in the language of the authors, rather than stating the rules from memory.</p> <p>TRIAL-MISCONDUCT OF COUNSEL- HARMLESS ERROR.</p> <p>The action of counsel in arguing a damage case in asking a verdict for the full amount claimed in the complaint, referring to another case in the same county where a jury had awarded the full demand, was not prejudical error, where the court, upon objection of the adverse party, immediately charged the jury that they should regulate their deliberations upon the evidence in the case.</p> <p>ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES-INSTRUCTIONS-CARRIER AS INSURER OF PASSENGERS.</p> <p>In an action for personal injuries received while a passenger upon a street car, an instruction is not prejudicial on the score of misleading the jury into the impression

Judges: Dunbar

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.