Mellon v. Cooper-Jarrett, Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 19615.,19615. |
| Citation | 424 F.2d 499 |
| Parties | Samuel R. MELLON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COOPER-JARRETT, INC., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Rudolph Janata, Columbus, Ohio, for defendant-appellant; Charles E. Brant, Wright, Harlor, Morris, Arnold & Glander, Columbus, Ohio, on brief.
Thomas R. Bopeley, Zanesville, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellee; Graham & Graham, by Kenneth Mortimer, Zanesville, Ohio, on brief.
Before EDWARDS, McCREE, and COMBS, Circuit Judges.
In this diversity action, the jury awarded plaintiff $59,700 for personal injuries received when his automobile overturned after being struck by defendant's tractor-trailer. The accident occurred on Interstate 70 in Ohio and Ohio law is applicable. Tracy v. Finn Equipment Company, 290 F.2d 498, 500 (6th Cir. 1961).
The defendant argues on this appeal: (1) plaintiff failed to show a causal connection between the collision and his injuries; (2) the verdict is against the weight of the evidence; and (3) plaintiff should have been required to answer in a pre-trial deposition whether he had been convicted of an offense less than a felony.
There is substantial evidence to support the jury's findings and we find no merit in either of the first two assignments of error. Defendant's third assignment of error requires reversal of the judgment.
Prior to trial, defendant took the deposition of plaintiff as if on cross-examination under Rule 26(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff was asked if he had been convicted of a felony and answered, "No." He was then asked if he had been convicted of an offense less than a felony and, on advice of counsel, he refused to answer. The propriety of the question was submitted to the district judge who held that plaintiff was not required to answer.
The questions propounded to plaintiff were as follows:
Plaintiff should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Dollars
...is whether the line of interrogation is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Mellon v. Cooper–Jarrett, Inc., 424 F.2d 499, 501 (6th Cir.1970). Even though all material obtained through discovery may not be offered or admitted at trial, “[m]utual knowledge ......
-
Lewis v. ACB Business Services, Inc.
...Ibid. The scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is traditionally quite broad. See Mellon v. Cooper-Jarrett, Inc., 424 F.2d 499, 501 (6th Cir.1970). "The scope of examination permitted under Rule 26(b) is broader than that permitted at trial. The test is whether the l......
-
U.S.A v. Dollars
...is whether the line of interrogation is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Mellon v. Cooper-Jarrett, Inc., 424 F.2d 499, 501 (6th Cir. 1970). Even though all material obtained through discovery may not be offered or admitted at trial, "[m]utual knowledge......
-
In re Dewitt
... ... 6th Cir. 1998) (citing Schaffer v. A.O. Smith Harverstone ... Prods., Inc. , 74 F.3d 722, 727 (6th Cir. 1996)). A fact ... is material if it might affect the outcome ... v. Sanders , 437 ... U.S. 340, 351-52 (1978); see also Mellon v ... Cooper-Jarrett, Inc. , 424 F.2d 499, 500-501 (6th Cir ... 1970) (noting that ... ...