Rhodig v. Cummings, 21355
| Decision Date | 26 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 21355,21355 |
| Citation | 418 P.2d 521,160 Colo. 499 |
| Parties | Harvey E. RHODIG, Plaintiff in Error, v. Mildred J. CUMMINGS, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Burnett, Watson & Horan, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Hindry, Erickson & Meyer, Charles F. Brega, Denver, for defendant in error.
Mildred J. Cummings, defendant in error here, brought this action to recover damages from Harvey E. Rhodig, plaintiff in error here, for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of an automobile collision between her car and that of Mr. Rhodig on May 1, 1961. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court, or by name.
On May 1, 1961, at approximately 9:30 P.M., the plaintiff and defendant were both driving in a southerly direction along Federal Boulevard in the City and County of Denver. The plaintiff stopped to wait for left turning traffic at the intersection of Federal Boulevard and West 37th Avenue. The defendant was unable to stop his car in time and was thus caused to collide with the rear of the plaintiff's automobile. Plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries to her neck and spine as a result of the collision as well as damage to her automobile. At the trial the amount of property damage to plaintiff's car was not contradicted and the trial court directed a verdict for the plaintiff as to liability and property damages in the amount of $100. The question of the amount of damages for the personal injuries to the plaintiff was then submitted to the jury, which assessed her damages at $11,000. Judgment was entered on this verdict.
The defendant urges reversal on three grounds:
1. That the trial court erred in refusing to admit into evidence x-ray films labelled as defendant's exhibits 1 and 2.
2. That the trial court erred in refusing to allow two of the defendant's expert witnesses to express opinions as to the validity of the medical test known as a Discogram.
3. That the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff as to liability for the plaintiff's personal injuries.
Defendant's first assignment of error deals with the refusal to admit into evidence x-ray films of the plaintiff taken at Fitzsimons General Hospital. One of the films was used by the plaintiff's doctor in diagnosing and treating the plaintiff's condition, the other was not. The films were not offered into evidence by the plaintiff at the time of the plaintiff's doctor's testimony. However, the defendant requested an order from the court requiring the plaintiff to produce these x-rays so that he might have his doctors examine them. The trial judge so ordered and the x-rays were produced. Thereupon, during the cross-examination, the defendant attempted to introduce the x-rays into evidence. The trial court refused to permit their introduction.
The defendant, thereupon, made no offer of proof as to what he expected the rejected x-rays to disclose or what he expected to prove by their admission. The record shows that he had had an opportunity to have his physicians examine the x-rays. He did not, however, advise the trial court, nor does he advise us, what effect he expected to achieve by the use of the x-rays. We cannot, therefore, determine whether, in the opinion of the defendant or the defendant's doctors, there was anything in the x-rays which would have impeached the testimony or affected the credibility of the plaintiff's doctor. It is true that ordinarily offers of proof are not required on cross-examination, but where, as here, it does not appear what benefit would be obtained from the use of rejected evidence, then we are unable to determine in what way the defendant was prejudiced. We cannot, therefore, hold,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Good v. A. B. Chance Co.
...of proof, and we are unable to determine what benefit could have been derived from the use of such evidence. See Rhodig v. Cummings, 160 Colo. 499, 418 P.2d 521 (1966); American National Bank v. Quad Construction, Inc., 31 Colo.App. 373, 504 P.2d 1113 Exhibits showing subsequent design chan......
-
Sulpher Springs Valley Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Verdugo
...the use of rejected evidence in order for the appellate court to determine whether there was prejudice or not. See Rhodig v. Cummings, 160 Colo. 499, 418 P.2d 521 (1966).4 The judgment in the Walters case was corrected as to costs and interest, which correction has nothing to do with the pr......
-
Denver Decorators, Inc. v. Twin Teepee Lodge, Inc.
...him must in connection therewith make a timely and adequate offer of proof. And such was not done in the instant case. See Rhodig v. Cummings, Colo., 418 P.2d 521; Baldwin v. Shipper, 155 Colo. 197, 393 P.2d 363; Bigler v. Richards, 151 Colo. 325, 377 P.2d 552; Berry v. Asphalt Paving Co., ......
-
Boring v. Bettner
...the same direction. Such have been the typical situations where such an instruction has been allowed in this state. Rhodig v. Cummings, 160 Colo. 499, 418 P.2d 521 (1966); Iacino v. Brown, 121 Colo. 450, 217 P.2d 266 (1950); Tracy v. Graf, 37 Colo.App. 323, 550 P.2d 886 (1976), rev'd on oth......
-
Internal Pictures
...Life Ins. Co ., 198 F.2d 562 (3d Cir. 1952); Freedman v. Mutual Life Ins. Co ., 342 Pa. 404, 21 A.2d 81 (1941). 11 Rhodig v. Cummings , 418 P.2d 521 (Colo. 1966); Quadlander v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co ., 224 S.W.2d 396 (Mo.App. 1949). 12 Pardodefigueroa v. Turner Const. Corp. , 33 A.D.3d ......
-
Internal Pictures
...Life Ins. Co ., 198 F.2d 562 (3d Cir. 1952); Freedman v. Mutual Life Ins. Co ., 342 Pa. 404, 21 A.2d 81 (1941). 11 Rhodig v. Cummings , 418 P.2d 521 (Colo. 1966); Quadlander v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co ., 224 S.W.2d 396 (Mo.App. 1949). 12 Pardodefigueroa v. Turner Const. Corp. , 33 A.D.3d ......
-
Internal Pictures
...Life Ins. Co ., 198 F.2d 562 (3d Cir. 1952); Freedman v. Mutual Life Ins. Co ., 342 Pa. 404, 21 A.2d 81 (1941). 11 Rhodig v. Cummings , 418 P.2d 521 (Colo. 1966); Quadlander v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co ., 224 S.W.2d 396 (Mo. App. 1949). 12 Pardodefigueroa v. Turner Const. Corp. , 33 A.D.3d......
-
Table of Cases
...24.209, 25.219, 44.100, 47.600 Rhodes v. Arc of Madison County , Inc., 920 F.Supp.2d 1202 (N.D. Ala., 2013), §22.300 Rhodig v. Cummings, 418 P.2d 521 (Colo. 1966), §49.200 Rhoten v. Pase , 252 Fed.Appx. 211 (10th Cir., Kan., 2007), §5:300 Rice v. C.I. Lanning , 97 P.3d 580, 322 Mont. 487 (2......