Hall v. Burkert, s. 4195
| Decision Date | 10 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 4195,4196,s. 4195 |
| Parties | , 24 O.O.2d 322 HALL, Appellee, v. BURKERT, Appellant (Two cases). |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Shirreffs, Jones & Moore, Youngstown, and Wise, Roetzel, Maxon, Kelly & Andress, Akron, for appellant.
Falls, Hazel & Kerr, Youngstown, for appellees.
The consolidated actions of Katherine P. Hall for personal injuries, and of Eugene R. Hall, her husband, for expenses, loss of services and loss of consortium occasioned by his wife's injuries in an automobile collision were tried to a jury and resulted in verdicts of $25,000 in favor of Mrs. Hall and of $10,000 in favor of her husband.
The defendant, appellant herein, admitted liability. Mrs. Hall's injuries were severe, her husband's out of pocket expense was substantial, and their claims that both injuries and expenses were occasioned by the accident were not seriously controverted.
There are three assignments of error. Firstly, the defendant complains that since liability was admitted, testimony concerning the manner in which defendant's car was being operated two or three miles away from the actual scene of the accident and immediately prior to the time of the collision should not have been admitted over the defendant's objection. It is argued that this testimony under these circumstances was immaterial since it bore upon liability, which liability was admitted.
The trial judge's admission of such evidence under these circumstances is discretionary both as to whether such evidence is too remote in time and distance and as to whether such evidence, if not too remote, is material and competent upon the controverted issue of the seriousness and permanency of the plaintiff's injuries. The speed with which a car is being driven into collision may have a distinct relationship with the seriousness of injury of a person injured in the collision. 21 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 210, Section 199; Pletcher v. Bodle, 13 Ohio Law Abst. 708; Solomon v. Mote, Ohio App., 49 N.E.2d 703; Van Agthoven, Adm'r v. Zumstein Taxicab Co., 18 Ohio App. 395.
Secondly, the trial court is said to have committed prejudicial error in admitting testimony, over defendant's objection, concerning the husband's claim for travel expenses to and from the hospital for the purpose of visiting his wife during her prolonged treatment there.
We hold that the reasonable expense incurred by the husband in visiting his wife during her period of hospitalization occasioned by an accident is a recoverable expense and concerning the extent of which the husband is competent to express an opinion. 20 American Jurisprudence, 656 et seq.
Thirdly, and most violently, defendant complains that plaintiffs' counsel in argument used a blackboard, and wrote thereon for the jury a list of figures representing counsel's idea of the money value to be placed upon Mrs. Hall's pain and suffering, suggesting that the jury, in computing the damages allowable to Mrs. Hall for her pain and suffering, might well use a per diem figure. For example, plaintiffs' counsel suggested $100 per diem for the 77 days Mrs. Hall was in traction, $100 per diem for the 221 days she spent in a cast, $50 per diem for the period (240 days) between removal of the cast and the first day plaintiff walked without crutches.
Appellant suggests that the use of such argument be proscribed and that this court should in so doing adopt the rule in Botta v. Brunner, 26 N.J. 82, 138 A.2d 713, 60 A.L.R.2d 1331, which states in the A.L.R. headnote:
'In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beagle v. Vasold
...jury that it will disregard his entire argument. Counsel assumes 'the risk of overpersuasion' (Brown, P.J., in Hall v. Burkert (1962) 117 Ohio App. 527, 193 N.E.2d 167, 169). If he overstates his claim by the device described in Affett, there is nothing to prevent defense counsel from point......
-
Franco v. Fujimoto
...Shore Public Service Co. v. Corbett, 227 Md. 411, 177 A.2d 701; Corkery v. Greenberg, 253 Iowa 846, 114 N.W.2d 327; Hall v. Burkert, 117 Ohio App. 527, 193 N.W.2d 167; Newbury v. Vogel, Colo., 379 P.2d Some courts have taken a middle course by holding that the allowance or disallowance of t......
-
Blissett v. Frisby
...of a husband in traveling to visit his wife in the hospital during her treatment has also been held recoverable. Hall v. Burkert, 117 Ohio App. 527, 193 N.E.2d 167 (1962). Expenses of a husband in traveling and residing in a hotel (exclusive of meals, laundry, tips and telephone calls) duri......
-
Durst v. Van Gundy
...O.O. 108], at 346-349, 7 N.E.2d 544; Mobberly v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1965), 4 Ohio App.2d 126, 211 N.E.2d 839 ; Hall v. Burkert (1962), 117 Ohio App. 527, 193 N.E.2d 167 . This is especially the case where the trial court allows the argument to stand without instructing the jury to disreg......
-
Motor Vehicle Accident Cases
...force of the impact and the surrounding circumstances may be relevant to show the extent of plaintiff’s injuries.”); Hall v. Burkert , 193 N.E.2d 167, 169 (Ohio Ct. App. 1963) (“The speed with which a car is being driven into collision may have a distinct relationship with the seriousness o......
-
Motor Vehicle Accident Cases
...force of the impact and the surrounding circumstances may be relevant to show the extent of plaintiff’s injuries.”); Hall v. Burkert , 193 N.E.2d 167, 169 (Ohio Ct. App. 1963) (“The speed with which a car is being driven into collision may have a distinct relationship with the seriousness o......