Case ID: nd_33/html/0567-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Burke, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

O. S. LEE v. ST. ANTHONY & DAKOTA ELEVATOR COMPANY, a Corporation.
    (157 N. W. 689.)
    This case is governed by Lee v. Imperial Elevator Oo. 34 N. D. 1, just decided by this court. In this case, however, exception is taken to the remarks of one of the counsel for plaintiff, who asserted that it was the policy of corporations to fight claims of this class, whether right or wrong. The court immediately admonished the jury that there was no evidence supporting such statement and to disregard the same. Eeld that the incident was without prejudicial error.
    Opinion filed March 7, 1916.
    Appeal from the District Court of Nelson County, Cooley, J.
    Affirmed.
    
      H. A. Libby, for appellant.
    
      A. V. A. Peterson (Frich & Kelly, and 8. G. Slculason, of counsel), for respondent.
   Burke, J.

The facts in this case are in most particulars identical with those in Lee v. Imperial Elevator Co. 34 N. D. 1, 151 N. W. 688, just decided by this court. That opinion governs herein so far as it goes, but there is one point in this case which did not occur in the other and requires separate mention. During argument to the jury, plaintiff’s attorney criticized corporations in general, and said that it was their policy to fight these cases whether right or wrong. Exception being taken to the remarks, the trial judge admonished the jury as follows: “You are to understand that you are to take into consideration only the evidence which has been given you by the witnesses, or such documentary evidence as may have been introduced here on the trial of this lawsuit, and you are not to take statements of counsel on either side if they are not borne out by this evidence, — and of course there is no evidence in this case that corporations have any such policy as was stated by counsel.” Appellant insists that those remarks of counsel were so prejudicial that the admonition of the trial court could not cure the damage. However, we are of the opinion that there is no prejudicial error in the incident. Judgment is affirmed.