Fahler v. Freeman
Decision Date | 12 November 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 2,No. 867,867,2 |
Citation | 143 Ind.App. 493,241 N.E.2d 394 |
Parties | Richard E. FAHLER, Appellant, v. Lucille FREEMAN, Appellee. A 48 |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
This is an action for damages for personal injuries growing out of a 'rear-end' type automobile accident. The appellant alleged in his complaint that he operated a motor vehicle north on Clinton Street in the City of Fort Wayne, Indiana, and that while stopped at the automatic stoplight at the intersection with Main Street, the appellee, Mrs. Freeman drove her automobile into the rear-end of plaintiff's stopped vehicle.
The issues were joined by the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's answer thereto which denied all material allegations in the complaint. The case was tried to a jury before the Allen Superior Court, No. 3, Allen County, Indiana. The jury found for the defendant, and judgment was so entered with costs to the plaintiff.
There was considerable conflict in the testimony of the parties and witnesses. The record is well punctuated with exchanges by counsel as to the propriety and admissibility of certain testimony. Assigned as error, specifically, is the overruling of the appellant's objection to questions by the appellee which showed that the appellant received employee's compensation payments for his medical expenses and did not bear these expenses out of pocket. The appellee, on the other hand, states that these questions were not designed to show payment of workmen's compensation benefits as alleged, but to impeach appellant's prior testimony. Since much of the appeal involves this issue, a portion of the testimony in question is set out here:
'Q. Let's just look at your next item. What is this next report that you have here in your file?
'A. This is to determine what to do with the X-ray invoice.
'Q. What did you do with it?
'A. I attached it to this report and sent it to Mr. Maroney.
'Q. Who is Mr. Maroney?
'A. He is claim adjuster for Continental Insurance Company.
'Q. And you sent him the bill?
'A. Yes, sir.
'Q. What for?
In arguing for reversal on the issue of compensation payments, the appellant cites Brindle v. Harter (1965), Ind.App., 211 N.E.2d 513, wherein the court stated in discussing a similar situation:
'In view of the above, therefore, it appears that as a general rule of law in this state evidence erroneously admitted upon cross-examination, to constitute reversible error, must have been of the character which could not have been proven by the examiner in direct examination, it must be of a type which could affect the attitude of the jury or prejudice the complaining party; and there must appear the possibility that in view of all evidence presented the erroneously admitted evidence could have affected the final verdict.'
The court went on to say:
'* * * It was held in J. C. Penney, Inc. v. Kellermeyer (1939), 107 Ind.App. 253, 265, 19 N.E.2d 882, 886, 22 N.E.2d 899: 'Whether or not such insurance was carried by the appellant could not in the slightest manner affect the question of the appellant's negligence charged in the complaint. Persistent efforts in this field of evidence which tend only to confuse and possibly prejudice the jury are usually regarded as prejudicial requiring a reversal." (Their emphasis)
The appellee in Brindle, supra,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Breese v. State
...dispute for resolution by the trier of fact. See People v. McKee (1968) 39 Ill.2d 265, 235 N.E.2d 625. Breese cites Fahler v. Freeman (1968) 143 Ind.App. 493, 241 N.E.2d 394, as support for his argument that he should have been permitted to present contradictory evidence to "counteract the ......
-
Estrada v. Port City Properties Inc.
...or worker's compensation benefits allowed where purpose has some bearing other than mitigating damages.]; Fahler v. Freeman, 143 Ind.App. 493, 241 N.E.2d 394, 395–96 (1968)[Evidence that personal injury plaintiff had been reimbursed for medical expenses by insurer was properly admitted for ......
-
Leuck v. Goetz, 471A79
...attempt on the part of plaintiffs to minimize the damage done by the defendant's evidence on this point. Fahler v. Freeman (1968) 143 Ind.App. 493, 241 N.E.2d 394; Montgomery v. Gerteisen (1964) 135 Ind.App. 633 at 646, 195 N.E.2d 868; Kaplan v. Tilles, Inc. (1961) 131 Ind.App. 390, 171 N.E......
-
Pavey v. State
...jury the impression that it was not his "nature" to talk about killing people. We must agree. As we stated in Fahler v. Freeman, 143 Ind.App. 493, 241 N.E.2d 394, 396 (1968), "[w]here evidence on a certain issue is introduced by one party, and it appears likely that the other party will be ......