Fetterolf v. Levick
| Citation | 80 Pa. D. & C. 523 |
| Decision Date | 24 September 1952 |
| Docket Number | 5155 |
| Parties | Fetterolf et ux. v. Levick, etc |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
June term, 1951
S J. Stark, for plaintiffs.
J B. Martin, for defendants.
Petition for leave to file interrogatories.
This is a petition for leave to serve interrogatories under Pa. R. C. P. 4005. Petitioners are defendants in an action for personal injuries growing out of an automobile collision which occurred on June 25, 1951. Plaintiffs have filed objections to each of the proposed interrogatories.
1. The first interrogatory asks for the names and home and business addresses of all eye witnesses to the accident. Plaintiff objects to the request for the business addresses of these persons on the ground that it " might result in undue harassment to the detriment of the business interests of said witnesses" . It is not apparent to us that such a result should be anticipated and no reason is suggested why it should. That it " might" is speculative merely and affords no basis under rule 4011 for refusing to allow the interrogatory. It is to be noted that Pa. R. C. P. 1009( b ) (2) (iii) permits service of process on an employee at his place of business, which was not permitted under prior law: Goodrich-Amram Civil Practice, sec. 1009( b ) (2).
2. The fourth, seventh and eighth interrogatories are concerned with the number and frequency of plaintiffs' medical treatments. The objection that this information is immaterial to the subject matter of plaintiffs' action is lacking in substance and requires no discussion.
3. The fifth and thirteenth interrogatories inquire to what extent the medical and other expenses incurred by plaintiffs, as a result of the accident, have actually been paid. The objection to these interrogatories is likewise based on rule 4011(c ) as calling for facts which " (1) are not relevant and material to the subject matter of the pending action . . ." . We are in accord with the sentiment expressed by Judge MacNeille in Klosterman et al. v. Clark et al., 78 D. & C. 263, that " determinations of irrelevancy are not to be loosely made" . Questions as to payment of medical bills cannot be excluded as irrelevant at the trial, even though they may be admissible only upon cross-examination. Here defendant asks for them presumably for cross-examination of any witness who testifies to the value of those services. This seems his right. The right of cross-examination in this general area cannot be narrowly restricted. Cf. Reed v. PTC, 171 Pa.Super 60 (1952).
4. The tenth interrogatory asks whether plaintiffs received any salary during the period they claim they were absent from work as a result of the accident. Plaintiffs again object on the ground of irrelevance. Whether such payments, if any, are to be considered in diminution of damages depends on whether or not they represent mere gratuities from the employer: Schwoerer v. Philadelphia et al., 167 Pa.Super 356 (1950). Since the information sought will be relevant at the trial, defendants are entitled to have it now in preparation for their cross-examination and the interrogatory is allowed.
5. Part of the information called for in the eleventh and twelfth interrogatories stands in a different light. Here plaintiffs are asked to disclose whether any workmen's or unemployment compensation was received during the period of their alleged disability following the accident. Such evidence is not admissible in mitigation of damages (Littman v. Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, 315 Pa. 370 (1934); Lengle et al. v. North Lebanon Township, 274 Pa. 51 (1922)), and we can think of no situation in which it could even on cross-examination in a properly conducted trial properly be introduced.
On the other hand, we see no objection to that part of the eleventh interrogatory which inquiries whether plaintiffs ever signed final workmen's compensation receipts. As pointed out in its brief, such information may " assist the defendant in establishing a defense on the question of the duration of any disability or inability to continue work." To this extent only, therefore, interrogatory 11 is allowed.
6. That part of the sixth interrogatory is objected to which asks plaintiffs to disclose the readings of any X-rays taken of plaintiffs following the accident. Plaintiffs' brief sets forth as the basis for their objection to this interrogatory that " no provision is made in the rules compelling either party to reveal to the other medical...
To continue reading
Request your trial