Lang v. Marshalltown Light, Power & Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 17 January 1919 |
| Docket Number | 30656 |
| Parties | JULIA LANG, Appellee, v. MARSHALLTOWN LIGHT, POWER, AND RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
REHEARING DENIED APRIL 4, 1919.
Appeal from Marshall District Court.--JAMES W. WILLETT, Judge.
ACTION to recover damages for personal injury. There was a trial to a jury, verdict and judgment for $ 5,000 for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Hasner & Hasner, Binford & Farber, and Edwards, Longley, Ransier & Smith, for appellant.
Bradford & Johnson and U. S. Alderman, for appellee.
This case has been here before. Lang v. Marshalltown L., P. & R. Co., 166 Iowa 548, 147 N.W. 917. The opinion there states the nature of the case, and we shall not repeat. Twenty-three errors are assigned. They relate, for the most part, to rulings of the court in admitting and excluding evidence, and the alleged restriction of cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses by defendant. It is also claimed that the trial judge made improper remarks, and that counsel for appellee, during the trial, were guilty of improper conduct in their remarks concerning counsel for appellant, and of improper argument to the jury concerning inefficiency of defendant's employee, the 17-year old conductor in charge of the car; improper questions asked witnesses, and the like. Complaint is also made of the refusal of the trial court to give an instruction requested by appellant, in which the court was asked to withdraw from the consideration of the jury certain alleged injuries to plaintiff, which were alleged in the petition, for the reason that it is contended by appellant there was no evidence in the case to show that such injuries existed. These have reference to injuries to the spinal cord and the nerves radiating therefrom, the alleged injuries to the ligaments of the neck, muscles of the left side, ribs, or the articulation and connection with the spinal column, and the like. It would not be practicable to discuss all the assignments in detail. Counsel for appellant say in argument that the questions asked and the objections are so numerous that it is practically impossible to set them out at length, and in each particular.
1. We shall attempt to cover those which seem to be of minor importance as briefly as may be, and in a general way, and notice more particularly those which seem to be more important. As said, this was the second trial of the case. After reversal in this court, the record shows, and it is so stated in argument, that this last trial was hotly contested by the several attorneys of ability and determination. There was naturally more or less sparring between counsel on both sides, and it may be that the trial court, under such circumstances, was not, at all times, as suave as he would have been under other circumstances. After an examination of the record, it is our conclusion that, as to these claims, the defendant had a fair trial, and has no just cause of complaint.
2. As to the appellant's offered instruction, before referred to, the argument is very brief. By the court's instruction No. 3, the trial court did say to the jury that, as to some of the alleged injuries, there was no evidence, and such were withdrawn from the consideration of the jury. As to others, there was evidence. Furthermore, by Instructions Nos. 10 and 11, the court left it to the jury to say, from the evidence, what injuries plaintiff proximately suffered by reason of the negligence of the defendant, as the natural result thereof, and the extent of her injuries and the damages resulting therefrom. We think there was no error at this point.
3. As to the alleged restriction of cross-examination, we think there was no error. With one or two exceptions, which will be noted later, the objections interposed by appellee, that the questions asked were not cross-examination, were properly sustained, or the ruling was within the discretion of the court. The cross-examination was quite extended.
4. Both plaintiff and defendant introduced witnesses who had taken X-ray photographs of portions of plaintiff's person, and the photographs were received in evidence. Plaintiff's witnesses testified, without objection, as to plaintiff's condition, as revealed by the photographs, or in connection therewith. Complaint is made by appellant that the court erred in refusing to allow doctors called by defendant to testify as to what appeared in the skiagraphs. An illustrative question asked by defendant of its witnesses is a question asked Doctor Cheshire:
Upon proper objection, the court sustained the objection to this question, whereupon counsel for defendant claimed that, in view of the fact that plaintiff's witnesses gave similar testimony, he was entitled to it; but the court stated that had there been an objection at that time, the court would have ruled; and counsel for defendant stated that he thought plaintiff was entitled to such evidence, but the court stated he did not agree with counsel. Defendant's three doctors on this subject, Dr. Cheshire, Dr. McGready, and Dr. Johnson, testified at great length in regard to the X-ray photographs. Dr. Cheshire's testimony takes up 25 pages of the abstract. He also testified that he made a personal ...
To continue reading
Request your trial