Patrick v. Yellow Cab Co.
| Decision Date | 13 October 1953 |
| Citation | 102 Ohio App. 312,114 N.E.2d 735 |
| Parties | , 2 O.O.2d 330 PATRICK v. YELLOW CAB CO. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Halle, Haber, Berick & McNulty, Cleveland, for defendant appellant.
E. E. Lurie, A. L. Sherwin, Cleveland, for plaintiff appellee.
In this case defendant appellant appeals on questions of law from a jury verdict for $1,000 and judgment thereon in Common Pleas Court in favor of plaintiff appellee. The plaintiff below was injured on his buttock and left arm when struck by a cab of the defendant company while standing somewhere within 10 to 12 inches of the curb on the west sidewalk of East 105th Street, forty feet north of Euclid Avenue, facing south in the city of Cleveland. The cab was proceeding south in the curb lane. No claim was made by either party that the plaintiff at any time stepped into the roadway or that the cab mounted the curb onto the sidewalk.
The assignments of error are that the trial court erred in the admission and exclusion of evidence and in its charge, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that counsel engaged in improper argument, and that there was misconduct of the jury. We have read the bill of exceptions and considered all assignments of error and find none prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant.
One of the jurors was questioned on the witness stand during the oral hearing on the motion for new trial as to whether or not she made measurements of a cab during the trial while away from the jury room. Such interrogation was permitted by the court over the objection of the plaintiff. Counsel for the defendant then cross examined this juror as to a statement allegedly made by her to a representative of the cab company during an interview at her home after the verdict. The court sustained an objection to this line of questioning with the statement that 'the interview of a juror with respect to his services and actions as a juror in this clandestine way is illegal and is an obstruction of justice * * *.' The court also subsequently ruled that it could not entertain any of the evidence of this juror for the purpose of impeaching the verdict of the jury since there was no evidence aliunde supporting it and overruled the motion for new trial.
Defendant says with regard to this episode that the trial judge entertained two misconceptions: (1) that the evidence sought to be developed is not admissible and, (2) that it is 'illegal' to interview a juror after the verdict about factors that influenced his verdict.
We shall answer the second of these propositions first by saying...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skeet v. Wilson
...v. Rhode Island Company, 32 R.I. 16, 78 A. 342, 31 L.R.A., N.S., 930; State v. Boykin, 40 Idaho 536, 234 P. 157; Patrick v. Yellow Cab Co., 102 Ohio App. 312, 114 N.E.2d 735; Keith v. State, 7 Okl.Cr. 156, 123 P. 172; see Anno. 58 A.L.R.2d 556. Point I is ruled against For his second point ......
-
State v. Michael L. Kellum, 82-LW-1350
... ... prevailing party at the mercy of jurors who were ... dissatisfied. Patrick v. Yellow Cab Co. (1953), 102 ... Ohio App. 312, 314, 114 N.E. 2d 735, 736 ... Further, based on the facts of this ... ...
-
Victoria Lynn Cameron v. Alba Ski & Sport Hut, Inc.
...and to close the door against endless attacks upon jury verdicts. See Lund v. Kline (1938), 133 Ohio St. 317, at 319; Patrick v. Yellow Cab Co. (1953), 102 Ohio App. 312; State v. Weeks (July 25, 1985), No. unreported (1985 Opinions 2179).®2¯ There are exceptions to the aliunde rule. The ......
-
State v. Emery Jones
... ... See ... Hutchinson v. Laughlin (1951), 90 Ohio App ... 5; Schmotzer v. Sixt (1952), 91 Ohio App ... 295; Patrick v. Yellow Cab Co. (1953), 102 ... Ohio App. 312; Nickell v. Gonzales (1986), ... 34 Ohio App. 3d 364; State v. Brown (Dec ... 28, ... ...