Llewellyn v. Duquesne Light Co.

Citations

• 273 Pa. 17
• 116 A. 530
• 1922 Pa. LEXIS 505

Syllabus

<p>Practice, G. P. — Trial—Evidence—Cross-examination—Harmless error.</p> <p>1. Where a defendant is permitted to ask plaintiff’s witness an improper question on- cross-examination, plaintiff should move to strike out the evidence, and the trial court’s refusal to strike it out, may he assigned for error.</p> <p>2. Such testimony, however, did plaintiff no harm, if his witness was later recalled, and gave an explanation of the same matter which nullified any possible adverse effect.</p> <p>Negligence — Electric light companies — Evidence—Underwriters rules — Charge—Question in rebuttal — Discretion of court.</p> <p>3. Where, in an action against an electric light company for the death of a man employed by a consumer of the company, a witness for defendant is permitted to testify that the underwriter’s rules required an equipment different from that used when the deceased was killed, the effect of such testimony, even if there was error in admitting it, is neutralized by an instruction that, as between plaintiff and defendant, the failure of the decedent’s employer to do his duty would avail nothing in favor of defendant, even if such instruction was erroneous, as such instruction withdrew from the jury the disputed evidence.</p> <p>4. The court committed no error in admitting the evidence under the case as it then stood.</p> <p>5. The court does not abuse its discretion in sustaining an objection to a question asked by plaintiff in rebuttal, where the question is not intelligible in itself, and, even if it had the meaning claimed for it, was not proper in rebuttal.</p>