Rosenberg v. Mageda
| Decision Date | 03 October 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 92.,92. |
| Parties | ROSENBERG v. MAGEDA. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Case made from Circuit Court, Allegan County; Orien S. Cross, Judge.
Action by Annette Rosenberg against Bernard Mageda. Judgment for defendant, plaintiff's motion for a new trial was denied, and plaintiff brings error.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before the Entire Bench.Leo W. Hoffman and Clare E. Hoffman, both of Allegan (Carl E. Hoffman, of Holland, of counsel), for appellant.
Harry C. Howard, of Kalamazoo, for appellee.
Plaintiff brought suit against defendant to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been suffered by her through defendant's negligence at a time when plaintiff was a guest in defendant's automobile.
It is plaintiff's claim the defendant, with whom she was riding, carelessly and negligently permitted the automobile being operated by him on the public highway to get out of control and tip over and injure her. The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict of no cause of action, upon which judgment was entered November 14, 1929. Motion for a new trial was made and denied, and plaintiff brings error.
1. It was brought out on cross-examination of plaintiff that she had, after the accident complained of, signed a written statement relating to the accident and her injuries. Plaintiff sought on redirect examination to interrogate the witness as to what was said to her at the time she signed the statement, to induce her to sign the same. It appeared from the testimony the plaintiff was unable to read English. This testimony proffered on redirect examination was excluded. Plaintiff had a right to fully explain the circumstances under which this paper was procured and state what was said to induce her to sign the same, even though it might appear from her testimony the statement was procured by the agent or adjuster of an insurance company holding the policy on defendant's car. It was error to exclude this testimony.
2. Dr. Penoyar, a witness for plaintiff, was, on cross-examination, shown a letter written by him, and testified in part to its contents. Plaintiff sought on redirect examination to show how the witness happened to write the letter. The trial court refused to permit plaintiff to show the circumstances under which witness wrote the letter, and held plaintiff could not ask him about any other statement in the letter than that brought out on cross-examination. The letter was not introduced in evidence. Plaintiff had a right to have a letter upon which the witness was cross-examined introduced in evidence. Full liberty of explanation of the circumstances under which the letter was written should have been afforded. Stoudt v. Shepherd, 73 Mich. 588, 41 N. W. 696;Van Dusen v. Letellier, 78 Mich. 492, 44 N. W. 572;People v. Mills, 94 Mich. 630, 54 N. W. 488;People v. Davis, 217 Mich. 661, 187 N. W. 390. Plaintiff had a right to have all that part of the letter in question, which modified in any way the statements drawn out by defendant on cross-examination relevant to the issue, introduced in evidence.
3. The court charged the jury they might consider the statements made by plaintiff in her signed statement as bearing upon the claim she made at the trial. The statements made by a witness out...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gates v. New York Life Ins. Co.
... ... It is well established that prior inconsistent statements of a witness can be used only to attack the credibility of that witness. See Rosenberg v. Mageda (1930), 251 Mich. 696, 232 N.W ... 397; Gabrish v. Morse (1960), 361 Mich. 39, 104 N.W.2d 757 ... Affirmed, costs to ... ...
-
Turner v. Caldwell
...91, 147 N.E.2d 390; Williams v. Matlin, 328 Ill.App. 645, 66 N.E.2d 719; Gegan v. Kemp, 302 Mich. 218, 4 N.W.2d 525; Rosenberg v. Mageda, 251 Mich. 696, 232 N.W. 397; Jankowski v. Clausen, 167 Minn. 437, 209 N.W. 317; Gleason v. Baack, 137 Neb. 272, 289 N.W. 349; Long v. Crystal Refrigerati......
-
Pinkerton v. Oak Park Nat. Bank
...a right to show the circumstances under which the statement was made, who prepared it and what interest he had in it. Rosenberg v. Mageda, 251 Mich. 696, 232 N.W. 397; Perry v. F. Byrd, Inc., 280 Mich. 580, 274 N.W. 335; Herbert v. Durgis, 276 Mich. 158, 267 N.W. 809.' The court properly de......
-
Ruhala v. Roby
...confusion in earlier cases in this Court on this question. The following statement appears in the case of Rosenberg v. Mageda, 251 Mich. 696, at page 699, 232 N.W.397, at page 398: 'The court charged the jury they might consider the statements made by Plaintiff in her signed statement as be......