Akin v. Lee
Citation | 206 N.Y. 20,99 N.E. 85 |
Parties | AKIN v. LEE. |
Decision Date | 11 June 1912 |
Court | New York Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
Action by Paul F. Akin, an infant, against William A. Lee. From a judgment for plaintiff (145 App. Div. 950,130 N. Y. Supp . 1103), defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.
See, also, 146 App. Div. 896, 131 N. Y. Supp. 1101.
Frank R. Keeshan, for appellant.
John T. Norton, for respondent.
The plaintiff, a lad of 12 years of age, was run into and injured by the defendant's automobile, and this action for damages is upon the ground that the automobile was being carelessly operated by the defendant's chauffeur. The plaintiff had a verdict, and the judgment entered thereon has been affirmed at the Appellate Division by a unanimous vote. Leave was given to the defendant to appeal to this court, and the error assigned by the appellant, and which survives the unanimous affirmance, is in the denial by the trial court of the defendant's motions to strike out statements to the effect that the defendant was insured. The father of the plaintiff, being examined as a witness in plaintiff's behalf, was asked to state a conversation that took place between him and the defendant. The witness told of the interview, and, among other things, stated that the defendant had said that it was his car, that his chauffeur had told him about the accident, and that he was insured. Upon his making this last statement, the defendant's counsel asked the court to strike it out as improper. The court ruled that the witness was entitled to state the conversation between him and the defendant, and an exception was taken.
[1] At another time, when the defendant was a witness in his own behalf, upon his cross-examination by the plaintiff's counsel, he was asked about his conversation with the plaintiff's family, and this question was asked of him: ‘You told Mr. Akin that you were insured against such accidents, didn't you?’ The witness answered: ‘Why, I did after I tried to straighten the case myself with them; after she said they were going to the full extent of the law _____.’ At this point the defendant's counsel interrupted the witness by an objection, and asked ‘to have the answer stricken out, until I get in the objection on the ground that it is incompetent, improper and immaterial.’ The court again ruled that, if it was part of the conversation, the witness might answer and an exception was taken.
If we might admit a doubt as to the first ruling, the error in the second is too serious to be disregarded. We have but recently held, following a rule already laid down by us, that evidence that the defendant in an action for negligence is insured in a casualty company is incompetent and its admission justifies an order for a new trial of the action. See Simpson v . Foundation Co., 201 N. Y. 479, 490,95 N. E. 10. Such evidence almost always is quite unnecessary to the plaintiff's case, and its effect cannot but be highly dangerous to the defendant's; for it conveys the insidious suggestion...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Curtis v. Ficken
...St. 605, 31 So. 790; Gore v. Brockman, 138 Mo.App. 231, 119 S.W. 1082; Wilson v. Blair, 65 Mont. 155, 27 A. L. R. 1235, 211 P. 289; Akin v. Lee, 206 N.Y. 20, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 947, N.E. 85; Bryant v. Welch Furniture Co., 186 N.C. 441, 119 S.E. 823; Stoskoff v. Wicklund, 49 N.D. 708, 193 N.W.......
-
Mississippi Ice & Utilities Co. v. Pearce
...56, 115 So. 117; Jessup v. Davis, 115 Neb. 1, 211 N.W. 190, 56 A. L. R. 140; Ann. 56, A. L. R. 1418; Watson v. Adams, 65 So. 528; Akin v. Lee, 99 N.E. 85; McCarty v. Spring Valley Coal Co., 232 Ill. 473, 83 N.E. 957; Ronan v. J. G. Turnbull Co., 99 Vt. 280, 131 A. 788; Kerr v. National Fult......
-
Whatley v. Boolas
...Bell, 79 N. J. L. 507, 77 A. 42; Simpson v. Foundation Co., 201 N.Y. 479, 95 N.E. 10, Ann. Cas. 1912B 321, 2 N. C. C. A. 183; Akin v. Lee, 206 N.Y. 20, 99 N.E. 85, Ann. 1914A 947, 1 N. C. C. A. 694; Starr v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 165 N.C. 587, 81 S.E. 776; Stoskoff v. Wicklund, 29 N.D. 7......
-
Jessup v. Davis
...605;Sutton v. Bell, 79 N. J. Law, 507, 77 A. 42;Simpson v. Foundation Co., 201 N. Y. 479, 95 N. E. 10, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 321;Akin v. Lee, 206 N. Y. 20, 99 N. E. 85, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 947;Starr v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 165 N. C. 587, 81 S. E. 776;Stoskoff v. Wicklund, 49 N. D. 708, 193 N. W......
-
Opening statement
...insurance is allowable. Direct action against an insurance company is authorized in Puerto Rico where accident occurred. Akin v. Lee , 206 N.Y. 20, 99 N.E. 85 (1912). Evidence of insurance is incompetent and justiies a new trial. OPENING STATEMENT §3:150 NEW YORK OBJECTIONS 3-16 Boehm v. Ro......
-
Opening statement
...insurance is allowable. Direct action against an insurance company is authorized in Puerto Rico where accident occurred. Akin v. Lee , 206 N.Y. 20, 99 N.E. 85 (1912). Evidence of insurance is incompetent and justiies a new trial. Boehm v. Rosario, 154 A.D.3d 1298, 63 N.Y.S.3d 164 (4th Dept.......
-
Opening statement
...insurance is allowable. Direct action against an insurance company is authorized in Puerto Rico where accident occurred. Akin v. Lee , 206 N.Y. 20, 99 N.E. 85 (1912). Evidence of insurance is incompetent and justifies a new trial. Smith v. Vohrer , 62 A.D.3d 528, 880 N.Y.S.2d 16 (1st Dept. ......
-
Opening statement
...insurance is allowable. Direct action against an insurance company is authorized in Puerto Rico where accident occurred. Akin v. Lee , 206 N.Y. 20, 99 N.E. 85 (1912). Evidence of insurance is incompetent and justifies a new trial. Boehm v. Rosario, 154 A.D.3d 1298, 63 N.Y.S.3d 164 (4th Dept......