195 Ky. 77 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1922
Opinion op the Court by
Reversing.
Appellant Maples brought this- action in the Jefferson circuit court to recover damages .of the appellee railway company for an injury to bis person and damage to bis wagon, received while be was driving a one-horse vehicle south on Twenty-fourth street, at the intersection with Main. The jury returned .a verdict for the appellee company, and Maples appeals.
It is also insisted by appellant that the court erroneously refused to allow him to explain why he signed, after his injury, an application to the police department for a position in which were the following .questions and answers:
“Q. Have you found that your health and habits in any way interfere with your success in civil life, and if so give details? A. No.
“Q. Do you consider yourself sound and well? A. Yes.
“Q. What illness, disease, or accident have you had since childhood A. None.”
This was brought out by the defendant company and it argues upon this appeal that appellant was not entitled to show that he made to the police department, at the time of the making of the said written application, a verbal statement to the effect that he had been injured to such an extent that he was unable to walk a beat as a policeman, but desired employment with the department as a driver of a police motor car. As this writing was between appellant Maples and the police department of the city of Louisville, it had no binding effect whatever between appellant and appellee. Its introduction was proper for the purpose only of contradicting and discrediting appellant Maples, if it did do s'o. That the application was in writing added nothing to its force so far as this trial was concerned, for appellant admitted he made the statement, but he says at the time he made the said written statement he made a verbal statement in explanation thereof to the effect that he had suffered an accident and was unable to walk a .beat. We hardly think that .any one learned in the law would argue that said explanation offered by appellant would have been admissible had the application •to the police department been a verbal one only. As its effect is exactly the same as if it had been verbal it must be conceded that appellant was entitled to show the whole conversation had between him and the police department at the time of the making of the application for position.
For the reasons indicated the judgment is reversed for new trial consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed.