Yaeger v. Southern California Railway Co.

Citations

• 5 Cal. Unrep. 870
• 51 P. 190
• 1897 Cal. LEXIS 959

Syllabus

<p>Evidence—Exclusion of Irrelevant Testimony.—Where, in an action against a railroad company for personal injuries, the jury found that plaintiff had suffered no injury for which he was entitled to redress, he was not injured by the exclusion of evidence to prove certain special damages.</p> <p>Evidence—Waiver of Objection.—An Objection not Made to the introduction of evidence when it is offered is waived, and cannot be considered on appeal.</p> <p>Evidence—Medical Expert.—In an Action for Personal Injuries, where plaintiff had testified to the fracture of the tenth rib, two inches from the spine, by the accident, it was proper for defendant to show •by a medical expert the necessary force to produce such injury, and that it could not have been caused by the accident.</p> <p>Evidence—Hypothetical' Questions.—Where Plaintiff’s Evidence tended to show that one of his ribs had been fractured by the accident, and that inflammation of the nerves was the result, defendant’s theory that fractured ribs could not have been caused by the accident, and that the condition of the nerves came from alcoholism, exposure or another accident, did not present a case for hypothetical questions.1</p> <p>Evidence.—When a Witness Answers After Objection to the question, the objection is not available, in the absence of a motion to strike the answer out.</p> <p>Appeal.—When a Notice of Appeal is for “Errors of law occurring at the trial,” the appellate court will not consider irregularity in the proceedings of the court-, the appeal being made from an order denying a new trial, and such questions not being presented to the trial court on the motion.</p> <p>Erial.—An Instruction to the Jury That, if the Air-brake was properly used to avoid a collision occasioned by the negligence of defendant, and plaintiff was injured by the sudden stoppage of the train, through the application of the air-brake, and not otherwise, they should find for defendant, is a proper instruction, there being eviden