Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Staten
| Decision Date | 16 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 3439.,3439. |
| Citation | 201 A.2d 528 |
| Parties | LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. Shellie STATEN, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Holbrook L. Potter, Washington, D. C., with whom Hugh Lynch, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and QUINN and MYERS, Associate Judges.
An action was brought by appellant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company against Shellie Staten, appellee, to recover a payment of $1,458.12 made by appellant as surety under a blanket Postal Bond issued to the Post Office Department.
Testimony established that Staten had been arrested and charged with over a dozen counts of petit larceny. Postal inspectors testified, inter alia, that when a loss in the mail was reported, a letter was sent to the sender and to the intended recipient to verify the reported loss; that the letters were then grouped so as to confirm the loss and define the route involved; that after an appraisal of the information thus collected, it appeared losses were occurring at the Main Post Office, which was then placed under surveillance; that Staten, an employee of the Department, had been observed over a period of time; that he had been apprehended with "marked" money in his possession; that after his arrest "reported losses of the nature involved in this case ceased to be heavy;" that all losses for almost a year which, in the opinion of the Post Office investigative staff were "fairly chargeable to [Staten], taking into consideration the unusual incidence of such losses, were computed and listed and filed with the insurance company, which accepted these reported losses as those occasioned by [Staten] and paid the claim as the result of such acceptance."
Staten, called as an adverse witness, admitted two thefts, not included in this claim for reimbursement as he had made restitution, but vigorously denied having committed any of the other alleged thefts and pointed out that the other counts against him were dropped.
This testimony was accepted by the court, but when the report listing the dates and amounts of the losses which had been attributed to appellee was offered into evidence, the court sustained his objection to it on the ground it was hearsay. The insurance company then rested and Staten moved to dismiss appellant's case, which motion was granted and judgment entered for Staten.
Appellant contends on appeal that the trial court erred (1) in excluding the above report which purported to show losses chargeable to Staten and (2) in granting appellee's motion to dismiss at the close of appellant's evidence.
In Boerner v. United States (2nd Cir.), 117 F.2d 387, relied upon by appellant, a report, similar to the one here in question, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
District of Columbia v. Smith
...intelligent deliberation and reach a reliable decision." S. Kann's Sons Corp., supra, 320 A.2d at 595 (quoting Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Staten, 201 A.2d 528, 530 (D.C.1964)). Therefore, the trial court erred in submitting this case to the jury and in denying the motion for judgment n......
-
Sullivan v. Yellow Cab Company
...had been withdrawn. Other assignments of error we have considered and find to be without merit. Affirmed. 1. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Staten, D.C. App., 201 A.2d 528 (1964); Baldi v. Nimzak, D.C.Mun.App., 158 A.2d 915 (1960); Guaranty Development Co. v. Liberstein, D.C.Mun.App., 83 A.2d 6......
-
S. Kann's Sons Corporation v. Hayes
...evidentiary foundation on which to predicate intelligent deliberation and reach a reliable decision. . . . [Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Staten, D.C.App., 201 A.2d 528, 530 (1964).] Following the verdict, appellee moved to have sanctions imposed on appellant for its failure to completely......
-
Papanicolas v. Group Hospitalization, Inc., 80-76.
...is no evidentiary foundation on which to predicate intelligent deliberation and reach a reliable verdict. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Staten, D.C.App., 201 A.2d 528 (1964); Simpson v. Logan Motor Co., D.C.App., 192 A.2d 122 (1963). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to app......