· 5/19/1919

Fillippon v. Albion Vein Slate Co.

Citations

250 U.S. 76
39 S. Ct. 435
63 L. Ed. 853
1919 U.S. LEXIS 1716

Syllabus

In response to an inquiry from the jury, who had retired to consider of their verdict, the trial court sent them a supplementary instruction in writing on a question of contributory negligence. Held error, the parties and their counsel being absent and no opportunity being given them either to be present or to make timely objection. P. 80. An opportunity afterwards to except to an instruction and to the manner of giving it is not equivalent to an opportunity to be present during the proceedings, since the prime and essential function of an exception is to direct the mind of the trial judge to the point in question so that he may reconsider and change his ruling if convinced of error. P. 81. In jury'trials erroneous instructions are presumptively harmful. P. 82. An erroneous instruction may neutralize a correct one on the same subject and introduce material error. P.83. Under the law of Pennsylvania, a servant who goes on with perilous work under the peremptory orders of his master, although knowing the attendant danger and 'having time to consider, is not guilty of contributory negligence unless he knows, or has reason to suppose, that the danger is inevitable or imminent. P. 82.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

establishing that the parties to a lawsuit have a right to be “present in person at all proceedings from the time the jury is impaneled until it is discharged after rendering the verdict”
noting right of parties to be present at civil trials “in person or by counsel” (emphasis added)
in civil case, judge responded to jury’s written inquiry during deliberations by instructing jury without informing counsel
“[W]ritten instructions ought not to be sent to the jury without notice to counsel and an opportunity to object.”
right to be present is \essential to the proper protection of the right to be heard\
“It is not correct . . . to regard the opportunity of afterwards excepting to the instruction and to the manner of giving it as equivalent to an opportunity to be present during the proceedings.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Pitney

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.