Hoffschlaeger Co. v. Fraga
| Decision Date | 18 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | 3997. |
| Citation | 290 F. 146 |
| Parties | HOFFSCHLAEGER CO., Limited, v. FRAGA. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
W. O Smith, L. J. Warren, W. L. Stanley, R. A. Vitousek, all of Honolulu, Hawaii, and Jesse H. Steinhart and John J Goldberg, both of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff in error.
Fred Patterson, of Hilo, Hawaii, Charles S. Davis, of Honolulu Hawaii, and Morrison, Dunne & Brobeck and Edward Hohfeld, all of San Francisco, Cal. for defendant in error.
This was an action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from a fall through an open elevator shaft in a public sidewalk on one of the streets of Hilo, territory of Hawaii. After the jury was impaneled and sworn and a part of the testimony taken, one of the newspapers of Hilo published an article commenting on the trial, in which it was stated that an insurance company was defending the case, and that it was reported that at the time of the accident the insurance company agreed to settle for a small amount. On the incoming of court on the following morning, the defendant moved the court to withdraw a juror and declare a mistrial because of this publication. The motion was denied.
In the course of the trial a medical expert, called by the plaintiff, was asked upon cross-examination if he had any authority to support certain statements made by him in the course of his cross-examination. The witness named certain authorities and said they were at his home. The defendant thereupon moved the court for an order requiring the witness to produce the authorities, but the motion was denied. Again the same witness was asked to turn to a passage in a certain work referred to by him on cross-examination, but the court refused to permit the witness to do so, and it is claimed that the court unduly restricted the cross-examination of the witness in other respects.
It is also claimed that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law; that the verdict was excessive; and error is assigned to certain portions of the charge of the court, especially to the charge that the verdict could in no event exceed the sum of $11,500, which was the amount claimed in the complaint. A judgment in favor of the plaintiff was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the territory, and the defendant brings error.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
RUDKIN Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
Under the facts of this case the Supreme Court of the territory did not find it necessary to determine whether the practice of withdrawing a juror obtains in that territory, nor do we. It will be conceded that in some jurisdictions the admission of testimony, or an offer of proof, tending to show that an insurance company, not a party to the action, is the real party in interest, is reversible error, and it is generally conceded that offers of compromise are incompetent. But there is a vast difference between testimony or offers of proof in open court and mere newspaper reports, and it seems to us that counsel for the plaintiff in error has unduly magnified the importance of the incident complained of. The objectionable part of the publication reads as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franco v. Fujimoto
...in the opinion (374 P.2d at p. 620): 'It is settled in this jurisdiction that such an instruction is not objectionable. Hoffschlaeger Co. v. Fraga, 290 F. 146 (9th Cir.), aff'g Fraga v. Hoffschlaeger, 26 Haw. 557. The amount claimed in the complaint is, however, no indication of the amount ......
-
Caylor v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
...and it is an insult to human intelligence to say that they are likely to mislead or otherwise influence the jury.' Hoffschlaeger Co., Ltd. v. Fraga, [9 Cir.] 290 F. 146, 149.' It is apparent that the overwhelming weight of authority in this country has refused to accept the limitation on ar......
-
Beason v. I. E. Miller Servs., Inc.
...S.Ct. 594, 60 L.Ed. 979 (1916) ; McDermott v. Severe , 1905, 202 U.S. 600, 26 S.Ct. 709, 50 L.Ed. 1162 (1906) ; Hoffschlaeger Co., Ltd. v. Fraga , 290 F. 146, 149 (9th Cir. 1923).150 Oldenburg v. Clark , 489 F.2d 839, 843 (10th Cir. 1974) citing Chesapeake & O.R. v. Carnahan , 241 U.S. 241,......
-
Evening Star Newspaper Company v. Gray
...and it is an insult to human intelligence to say that they are likely to mislead or otherwise influence the jury." Hoffschlaeger Co., Ltd. v. Fraga, 290 F. 146, 149. Decisions of the Supreme Court and the highest court of this jurisdiction have taken the same view. In McDermott v. Severe, 2......