Remmel v. Czaja

• Decision Date: 08 April 1924
• Parties: REMMEL v. CZAJA.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

183 Wis. 503

198 N.W. 266

REMMEL

v.CZAJA.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 8, 1924.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; John J. Gregory, Judge.

Action by Robert Remmel against John Czaja, doing business as the Milwaukee Boiled Ham Company. Plaintiff had judgment in the civil court, Milwaukee county, upon a jury verdict that a driver of defendant's truck was negligent, thereby causing a collision with a motorcycle on which plaintiff was riding, and to his damage $1,400. Defendant challenged such verdict in the civil court, notwithstanding which the verdict was sustained and judgment directed for plaintiff for such amount. Defendant appealed to the circuit court, where the judgment was reversed, and a new trial in the circuit court ordered, and from such order plaintiff has appealed. Reversed and remanded, with directions.Michael Levin, of Milwaukee, for appellant.

Anderson, Donovan & Steinle, of Milwaukee (Erwin F. Nell, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for respondent.

ESCHWEILER, J.

Upon a review of the record from the civil court, the circuit judge, by written decision, expressed the opinion that substantial justice had not been done in the case, and as grounds for such conclusion and as the prejudicial errors causing such result mentioned the following:

(1) References by plaintiff's counsel to an insurance company.

(2) The admission in evidence of statements made by the driver of defendant's truck some time after the accident.

(3) Remarks by plaintiff's counsel as to alleged misconduct of defendant's driver in talking during an intermission with certain of the jury trying said cause.

(4) That leading questions, many of them containing conclusions, were permitted to be asked during the trial.

[1][2] Plaintiff's counsel unnecessarily, improperly, and repeatedly, by his questions of defendant's driver and another witness referred to there being some insuance company, not a party to this action, liable over for the payment of any damages that the plaintiff might recover against the defendant here. This had no proper place in the trial of this action, and such practice has been condemned. Smith v. Yellow Cab Co., 173 Wis. 33, 37, 180 N. W. 125. Defendant's counsel, however, did not interpose objections to that line of questions by plaintiff's counsel of defendant's driver nor call the court's attention thereto at the time nor subsequently by request to charge the jury with reference to the matter. When proper objection was later...