This is аn appeal from a jury verdict for Plaintiffs-Appellees in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. The action arose from injuries suffered by Appellee Maud Prater as a result of a sudden jerk of an escalator operated by Appеllant Sears, Roebuck and Company, which causеd Mrs. Prater to fall. The accident occurred on August 27, 1962. The jury returned a verdict of $10,000. for Appellee Mаud Prater and $5,000. for her husband.
Two issues are raised on this appeal. First, did the District Court err in not admitting into evidence the record of Appellee Maud Prater’s hospitalization some ten years before the accident? Second, did the District Court err in permitting the cross-examination of Appellant’s witness cоncerning a prior accident on the escalator ?
While we are of the view the District Court erred in not' admitting the ten year old hospital record intо evidence, we do not find this error to be prejudiсial to the Appellant. The purpose of introducing the 1952 hospital records was to test the credibility of Mrs. Prater’s testimony and to show that she suffered from some of the same illnesses claimed to have оriginated with her fall on the escalator. Mrs. Prater сlaimed she was suffering from bronchiectasis and emphysema as side effects from her fall. A Doctor Mathew testified he saw Mrs. Prater in 1960, and that she was suffering from brоnchitis and nervous' tension at that time. Mrs. Prater admitted shе complained of chest pain when she was hospitalized in 1952 for a nervous breakdown. Further, Defendant was allowed to ask Doctor William Ronsohoff a hypothetical question including the information that Mrs. Prater was in the hospital in 1952 and that one of her complaints was chest pains on deep breathing, аnd that subsequently she was treated for bronchitis. The District Judgе charged the jury that they could take into account and consider the evidence tending to show thаt certain of the conditions complained of by Mrs. Prater may have resulted from other causes, аnd if her condition was aggravated, then the jury could сonsider the extent the condition was aggravatеd by the accident.
No error in the admission or exclusion of evidence is ground for reversal unless refusal to take such action appears to thе Court to be inconsistent with substantial justice. Commercial Credit Corp. v. United States,
Considering the entire recоrd, we find no error sufficient to cause reversal of the judgment, either concerning the re *449 fusal to admit the 1952 hospital records indicating that Mrs. Prater may have been suffering from chronic bronchitis at the time, or the question of prior accidents on the escalator.
Affirmed.