Laughlin v. Street R. Co.

• Citation: 80 Mich. 154,44 N.W. 1049
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 11 April 1890
• Parties: LAUGHLIN v. STREET RY. CO. OF GRAND RAPIDS.

44 N.W. 1049

80 Mich. 154

LAUGHLIN v. STREET RY. CO. OF GRAND RAPIDS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 11, 1890

Error to superior court of Grand Rapids; E. A. BURLINGAME, Judge.

Action for personal injuries by Mary Laughlin against the Street Railway Company of Grand Rapids. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Montgomery & Bundy, (Jas. H. Hoyt, of counsel,) for appellant.

Mitchel & McGarry and Peter Doran, for appellee.

GRANT J.

This case has before been in this court, and is reported in 62 Mich. 220, (28 N.W. 873.) It is unnecessary to restate the case or the facts here, as they are the same in both records or to discuss the general principles involved. They are discussed and decided in the former opinion of the court. Counsel for plaintiff was permitted by the court to read to the jury the decision of this court in the same case, upon the subject of contributory negligence. He accompanied his reading with the following statement: "Here is the opinion of the supreme court upon a question of fact, whether this party was guilty of negligence or not, and what I propose to show is that the supreme court of the great state of Michigan, upon the facts appearing upon the other trial said that the testimony of the plaintiff all tended to show at least, ordinary care, and that was all the law required; and that the very arguments my brother has made in this case is asking that the jury find what the supreme court said did not exist." These remarks of counsel, and the reading of the opinion to the jury, were highly improper. Such practice is very reprehensible. Fair and impartial verdicts cannot be obtained when such means are resorted to for the purpose of influencing the jury.

Mary Conklin, a witness for plaintiff, was asked what expressions of pain were made by plaintiff more than four years after the accident. This was after the suit was commenced, and about the time it was expected to come on for trial. Under these circumstances, proof of such expression was incompetent, and the court should have rejected the testimony. In reply, the witness did not testify to any expressions of pain, but only described her appearance and condition. The error, therefore, was not prejudicial, but in view of a new trial, we decide the question raised. The other points raised upon the record are disposed of by the former opinion of this court.

Judgment must be reversed, and new trial...