Sallee v. Routson
| Decision Date | 18 September 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 48945,48945 |
| Citation | 247 Iowa 1220,78 N.W.2d 516 |
| Parties | Clarence F. SALLEE and William H. Sallee, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Earl ROUTSON, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
McMullin, Running & Test, Des Moines, for appellants.
Dickinson, Throckmorton, Parker, Mannheimer & Raife, Des Moines, Nelson & Stienstra, Sioux City, for appellee.
Plaintiffs, father and son, seek damages. The father, William H. Sallee, as owner of the car which was being driven by the son, Clarence F. Sallee, for damage to it; and the son for personal injuries sustained and alleged to be caused by defendant's negligent operation of his car. At the close of plaintiffs' case in chief, the court sustained a motion to direct a verdict for defendant; and plaintiffs appeal.
The record shows that in March, 1954, around 6 p. m., Clarence Sallee was driving south on Highway 60 just north of the Des Moines city limits. He was driving 60 to 65 miles per hour; and as he approached the intersection of the Highway with Plainview Drive, which is an east-west road, he observed defendant's car approach the Highway from the west. That it slowed down but did not stop although there was a stop sign at the entrance of the road onto the Highway. Defendant entered the Highway, turning right directly in front of plaintiffs' car. In attempting to avoid a collision plaintiffs' car skidded out of control and turned over causing the alleged injury and damage. Plaintiffs' testimony was in the main corroborated by a disinterested observer.
The basis for the sustaining of the motion for a directed verdict was that there was no evidence of damage to the car or of personal injuries. This is assigned as error and presents the real issue before us. The question of damage to the car and that of personal injuries present different propositions and will be dealt with separately.
I. Damage to the car. Clarence F. Sallee furnished the only testimony regarding same. He stated he had received an estimate as to the damage to the car from Whattoff Motor Co. He had, at the time, a writing purporting to be a statement of the estimate. He was asked: No objection was offered to the question or motion made to strike the answer. Plaintiff then offered in evidence as Exhibit A the paper containing an alleged estimate of damages. Objection was made to the Exhibit as not the best evidence and as being merely a copy; and the same was sustained. It is claimed by appellee that all of the testimony, including that above quoted, was offered solely with reference to identification of the paper offered as Exhibit A. We do not agree. The question, before quoted, has no reference to any paper but specifically asks what had been said to the witness. It is clearly hearsay testimony and, under proper objection, inadmissible.
As the record stands the cost of repair to the car was $584.02. Appellee states the rule to be that testimony, inadmissible under proper objection, received in evidence without objection fails to generate a jury question. While there is authority to such effect, it is a minority view. The general rule as stated in 88 C.J.S., Trial, § 150, is: 'Evidence to which no objection is made is properly in the case for all purposes and may be considered, although it would have been excluded had objection been made; such evidence is entitled to its full and natural probative effect'; see also Section 153 thereof. This general rule is recognized and followed in Iowa. O'Brien v. Biegger, 233 Iowa 1179, 11 N.W.2d 412; Odens v. Veen, 234 Iowa 1029, 14 N.W.2d 705; Walker v. City of Clinton, 244 Iowa 1099, 59 N.W.2d 785, 791, where we say: "It is the general rule that a material fact at issue may be established by hearsay evidence, where the same is admitted without objection"--citing Reid v. Automatic Electric Washer Company, 189 Iowa 964, 179 N.W. 323; In re Fagin's Estate, 246 Iowa 496, 66 N.W.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Fulton v. Scheetz
...Co., 257 Iowa 734, 756--757, 133 N.W.2d 884; Castner v. Wright, 256 Iowa 638, 652, 127 N.W.2d 583, 128 N.W.2d 885; Sallee v. Routson, 247 Iowa 1220, 1222--1223, 78 N.W.2d 516. If the objection made was in anticipation of the question to follow, it came too soon, there being no subject upon ......
- Lenders' Estate, In re
-
Ackerman v. James
...with statements which are not hearsay. The damaging testimony which followed was admitted without objection. In Sallee v. Routson, 248 Iowa 1220, 1222--1223, 78 N.W.2d 516, 517, quoting from 88 C.J.S. Trial § 150, the Iowa court said: "Evidence to which no objection is made is properly in t......
-
McCarney v. Des Moines Register & Tribune Co.
...plaintiff's failure to raise the hearsay objection in the trial court precludes reliance on it here. Sallee v. Routsen, 247 Iowa 1220, 1222--1223, 78 N.W.2d 516, 517--518 (1956). Taken together, the answers to interrogatories and the affidavit of Mr. Kline, in the absence of controverting e......