Case ID: ill-app_208/html/0104-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Thompson", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Valerian Simpkus, Appellee, v. Superior Coal Company, Appellant.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Evidence, § 399
      
      —when question does not embody facts to be . found by jury. A question asked of an expert witness that “supposing a man,” etc., describing the conditions shown by the evidence gave a history of inability to copulate, what would he say as to such inability being from the injuries found, held not objectionable as embodying the facts to be found by the jury, although suggestive and leading and objectionable on such latter ground.
    
      Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macoupin county; the Hon. Frank W. Burton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1917. Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 11, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Valerian Simpkus, plaintiff, against the Superior Coal Company, defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while employed at defendant’s coal mine. From a judgment for plaintiff for $5,250, defendant appeals.
    Edward C. Knotts, for appellant.
    Truman A. Snell, W. A. Ruegg and A. M. Fitzgerald, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Appeal and error, § 1506 -—when improper answer on cross-examination is not reversible error. Where part of the answer to a question on cross-examination by defendant was uncalled for, held, on a motion by defendant’s counsel to exclude the evidence, that there was no reversible error when the uncalled for part was read in connection with the preceding evidence of the witness.

3. Damages, § 238*—what objection cannot be first raised on appeal. An objection that certain hospital expenses, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries, were unnecessary cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

4. Damages, § 110*—when verdict for permanent personal injuries is not excessive. A verdict for $5,250 held not excessive, where there was no contention plaintiff was not seriously injured, that he suffered much pain, and was still more or less of a cripple, and even defendant’s experts did not testify he was not permanently injured.