Hawks v. Town of Chester
| Decision Date | 03 March 1898 |
| Citation | 40 A. 727,70 Vt. 271 |
| Parties | HAWKS v. TOWN OF CHESTER. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Windsor county court; Start, Judge.
Action by L. F. Hawks against the town of Chester. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant excepted. Affirmed.
The plaintiffs evidence tended to show that as he, in the exercise of due care, was driving over the bridge with a pair of horses and a wagon loaded with logs, the bridge, by reason of a decayed girder, gave way, precipitating the plaintiff and his team to the bed of the brook; that his head was bruised, one of his ribs fractured, and that he was still suffering from nervous prostration resulting from his injuries. The defendant's evidence tended to show that the girder was new, and on the outside entirely sound; that the town officers were not negligent in failing to discover the decay at the center; and that the plaintiff was not seriously injured.
L. M. Read, for plaintiff.
Waterman, Martin & Hitt and G. L. Fletcher, for defendant.
While the plaintiff and his team were yet in the brook, where the falling of the bridge had precipitated them, a witness asked him if he was killed, and he said, "No; but I am terribly hurt." Another witness testified that he said he was "badly hurt." The question to the first witness was unwarrantably broad, as it called for anything the plaintiff said when the witness first saw him there, but the answer did not go beyond permissible bounds, as it contained nothing but a relevant expression by the plaintiff as to his then present bodily condition in respect of injury; and the testimony of the other witness is to the same effect.
The defendant claims that, as the statements indicated the extent of the plaintiff's injury, they were inadmissible, and cites, among other cases, Insurance Co. v. Mosley, 8 Wall. 397, in support of the claim. But that case is the other way. It was assumpsit on an accident policy, and it was shown that the intestate said he had fallen down the back stairs, and almost killed himself; that he had fallen down the back stairs, and hurt himself very badly. It was held that those statements contained nothing in the nature of narration, but related to the then present bodily condition of the intestate in respect of pain and injury, and therefore were admissible to show that condition. This is certainly as strong a case as that, if not stronger, for the admission of the declarations. There is no doubt about the rule; It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edward P. Squires v. John J. O'Connell
...which is instantly objected to and ruled out as inadmissible, the court cannot properly treat it as in the case. In Hawkes v. Chester, 70 Vt. 271, 40 A. 727, it was held that where an answer goes beyond the scope of question, and is stricken out by the court on the request of the examiner, ......
- Supreme Lodge, Order of the Golden Chain, v. Simering
-
Squires v. O'Connell
...which is instantly objected to and ruled out as inadmissible, the court cannot properly treat it as in the case. In Hawkes v. Chester, 70 Vt. 271, 40 Atl. 727, it was held that, where an answer goes beyond the scope of the question, and is stricken out by the court on the request of the exa......