White v. Old Dominion S.S. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 April 1886 |
| Citation | 102 N.Y. 660,6 N.E. 289 |
| Parties | WHITE v. OLD DOMINION S. S. CO. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
R. D. Benedict and Frank D. Sturges, for appellant, Old Dominion Steam-ship Company.
Luther R. Marsh, for respondent, R. Cornell White.
The evidence presented by the record in this case is very voluminous, having occupied the trial court nearly three weeks in its reception, and extending over a wide range of subjects, covering all the numerous issues of fact involved in the examination of questions relating to the respective negligence of the carrier of property charged with the duty of towing it upon the ocean, in the face of a storm, to a harbor or port of destination, and of the owner of such property in authorizing it to be towed, when, as it was alleged, it was in an imperfect condition, and incapable of enduring the dangers naturally to be apprehended from such a voyage. We think there was not one of the issues involved in the merits of this controversy which was not the subject of the most conflicting and contradictory testimony, and, whatever conclusion we might have arrived at upon the evidence if presented to us as an original question, we do not feel authorized to review the determination of the tribunal specially selected by law to investigate and determine such questions.
The claim is made by the appellant that as to several of the issues involved in the merits of the dispute, questions of law are presented by undisputed evidence in the case; but we are of the opinion, after a careful reading of the whole case, that this claim is unfounded, and that every such question presented upon the appellant's points was one of fact upon which the evidence was contradictory. It would be quite a vain and unprofitable task to enter into what must necessarily be, if attempted, a lengthy discussion of the facts in the case, and which must necessarily terminate in the proposition that such questions were exclusively for the consideration of the jury, and exempted thereby from review in this court. There are, however, several questions, relating to exceptions taken to the admission and exclusion of evidence on the trial, which have been the subject of some discussion in our consultations, and which we deem it profitable briefly to refer to.
The first of these is an exception to the exclusion by the court of an offer to prove certain facts, upon the cross-examination of the plaintiff by defendant's counsel, which was rejected by the trial court upon the ground that it called for proof of an admission drawn from the party during the negotiation for a settlement of the controversy, and was therefore inadmissible. The offer was as follows: That the plaintiff ‘stated that he saw the customary signals up before the Rockaway was taken in tow, but that he considered it a matter of no consequence because he had seen them up repeatedly before when no storm followed.’ One of the acts of negligence on the part of the defendant, which the plaintiff claimed authorized a recovery of the damages occasioned to him by the loss of the Rockaway, was that of going to sea in the face of an easterly storm, after notice thereof by the cautionary signals, and we have no means of determining the fact whether the jury did not base their verdict, to some extent, upon this act of negligence, rather than others claimed to be proved. It is true that but little stress was laid upon this act in the course of the trial, and but little time was taken in the examination of witnesses upon it, but still the fact remains that the question was in the case, was left to the jury by the court, and might have been the basis of their verdict. When, however, this evidence was offered, it appeared in testimony that the plaintiff had already sworn to the fact that he did see the cautionary signals before the Rockaway was taken in tow, and, so far as any material fact is embraced in the offer, it was to prove an admitted fact, and was therefore immaterial. It also appeared that the alleged admission was made during the course of a negotiation for a settlement, to which the plaintiff had been invited by the defendant's board of directors.
We are of the opinion that the character and substance of the things offered to be proved did not bring it within the exceptions to the rule excluding such admissions. There is no doubt but that the rule is well established in this country that the admission of a distinct fact which in itself tends to establish a cause of action or defense is not rendered inadmissible from the circumstance that it was made during discussion relating to a compromise, unless it is expressly stated to be made without prejudice; but if the admission is of such a nature as that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grabau v. Nurnberg
... ... an admission. West v. Smith, 101 U.S. 263, 25 L.Ed ... 809; White v. Old Dominion S. S. Co., 102 N.Y. 661, ... 6 N.E. 289 ... An ... unaccepted ... ...
-
Imperial Chem. Indus. Ltd. v. National Distillers & Chem. Corp.
...Inc., 286 F.2d 993, 938-939 (5th Cir. 1961), cert. denied 368 U.S. 833, 82 S.Ct. 55, 7 L.Ed.2d 34 (1961); White v. Old Dominion Steamship Co., 102 N.Y. 660, 6 N.E. 289 (1886); In the Matter of Ex-Lax Inc., 21 A.D.2d 786, 280 N.Y.S.2d 572, 575 National argues that because I. C. I. failed to ......
-
Seligson, Morris & Neuburger v. Fairbanks Whitney Corp.
...N.Y. 504, 507, 39 N.E. 644, 645; but as for admissions of fact made during the course of compromise discussions see White v. Old Dominion S. S. Co., 102 N.Y. 660 , 6 N.E. 289). That is not the situation in this case. Here, liability was always and still is conceded (cf. Brice v. Bauer, 108 ......
-
Heyman v. Hanauer
... ... proposition in settlement of a dispute: Sailor v ... Hertzogg, 2 Pa. 182; White v. Steamship Co., 102 N.Y ... Plaintiff ... could not offer an alleged admission in ... ...
-
Opening statement
...it is best to argue that your reference was unintentional and is, at worst, “harmless error.” CASES White v. Old Dominion S.S. Co. , 102 N.Y. 660, 6 N.E. 289 (1886). To exclude an admission as being made with a view toward compromise, the person making the admission must state expressly tha......
-
Hearsay
..., 9 St. John’s Journal Of Legal Commentary, Journal Of Civil Rights And Economic Development 359 (1993); White v. Old Dominion S.S. Co. , 102 N.Y. 660 (1886). HEARSAY 5-49 Hearsay §5:150 Subsequent Repairs Evidence of subsequent repairs or modification is inadmissible as an admission of neg......
-
Hearsay
..., 9 St. John’s Journal Of Legal Commentary, Journal Of Civil Rights And Economic Development 359 (1993); White v. Old Dominion S.S. Co. , 102 N.Y. 660 (1886). Subsequent Repairs Evidence of subsequent repairs or modiication is inadmissible as an admission of negligence, though it may be adm......
-
Table of cases
...1992), § 5:140 White v. Martins, 100 A.D.2d 805, 474 N.Y.S.2d 733 (1st Dept. 1984), §§ 21:20, 21:30, 21:50 White v. Old Dominion S.S. Co., 102 N.Y. 660, 6 N.E. 289 (1886), § 3:150 Wichy v. City of New York, 304 A.D.2d 755, 758 N.Y.S.2d 385 (2d Dept. 2003), § 16:60 Wickham v. Pafumi , 45 Mis......