Kingston v. Ft. Wayne & E. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 February 1898 |
| Citation | 112 Mich. 40,74 N.W. 230 |
| Parties | KINGSTON v. FT. WAYNE & E. RY. CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
On motion for rehearing. Denied.
For former report, see 70 N.W. 315.
This cause was in this court at the January term, 1897, and an opinion filed March 10th following, reported in 70 N.W. 315. On the trial in the court below the defendant had judgment which was reversed, and a new trial granted. The defendant thereafter moved for rehearing, which was granted.
While we are satisfied that the case was properly reversed, and a new trial granted, we think there are some matters in the former opinion which should be corrected. It was there held that certain evidence should not have been admitted, showing that the plaintiff for two or three years prior to that time was in the habit of becoming intoxicated, and also showing the character of the house or hotel he kept. From a further examination of the case, we are convinced that the court below was not in error in admitting it. The plaintiff claimed damages on account of: (1) The direct physical injury to himself; its natural incidents,-pain, suffering, etc. (2) Loss of wages which he would probably have received during the period which intervened between the date of the accident and the date of the verdict. (3) Loss of probable future earnings. It appears that when the plaintiff was injured he was not employed at any work, and the testimony tends to show that his habits were very dissolute; that he kept a house of doubtful character, and had before that been discharged from his employment at other places. Counsel contends that "it is not in the usual course of things that a man of dissolute habits, of more or less evil association, of bad record, and of ill repute, should obtain employment as readily, or to the same extent, as if he were sober, industrious, of good fame and record, and that defendant had the right to lay before the jury, by appropriate testimony, any facts concerning the plaintiff's habits, character, or repute which might throw light on the probability of his securing employment and the character and continuity of the same." We think the doctrine cannot be carried to the extent claimed by counsel. The defendant undoubtedly had the right to lay before the jury any facts concerning the plaintiff's habits or conduct which might throw light on the probability of his securing employment, and the character and continuity of...
To continue reading
Request your trial