69 Ind. App. 538 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1919
The following specific contentions are urged:
(1) That the answers to eleven of the interrogatories are not sustained by sufficient evidence; and that said eleven interrogatories are answered “in such a way as to show bias, prejudice and improper motives.”
(2) That the court erred in permitting the witness Duffy to state on cross-examination the condition of the rosin, oil and dirt, which accumulated from time to time in the oil hole.
(3) That instruction No. 6 “is unintelligible, involved, and therefore misleading to the jury.”
The instruction is not subject to that criticism. On the contrary, it is an accurate and clear statement of the law.
(4) That instruction' No. 33 permits compensation for future pain and suffering, and that there is no evidence to justify this instruction.
(5) That instruction No. 12 requested by appellant should have been given.
(6) That instruction No. 21 requested by appellant should have been given.
This instruction is in the following language: “If you find that plaintiff’s injury was caused by reason of his using á hook, bent at both ends, or by reason of his wearing, a canvass glove on his hand while attempting to do the work, and that in either respect plaintiff did not use ordinary care for his own safety, then the proximate cause of his injury lay in his • choice and use of the hook, or glove, and defendant is not liable.”
(7) That the court erred in admitting certain testimony given by appellee in rebuttal.
Millies also testified concerning other matters which went directly to the merits of the case and which were antagonistic to appellee’s cause of action. A proper foundation was laid for impeachment, and on rebuttal appellee testified: “On the occasion that Millies offered me a job he said, ‘We will give you $900.00 and a job, and you sign a release.’ ”
However, it appears that appellee’s testimony as to this matter was permitted to go to the jury for the sole purpose of impeachment; that is to say, for whatever it might be worth as tending to show bias or prejudice on the part of Millies, or his interest' in behalf of the company, or as affecting his credibility. By its instruction No. 31 the court directed the jury to consider appellee’s said testimony only for the purpose of impeachment, and not as an admission of negligence or liability on the part of appellant. Under these circumstances there is no error in the admission of appellee’s testimony. Butler Ballast Co. v. Hoshaw (1900), 94 Ill. App. 68; Louisville, etc. v.
(8) That the damages are excessive.
Judgment affirmed.