Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/305/305mass76.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:34:17+00:00

Document:
GERALD F. MITCHELL vs. WALTON LUNCH COMPANY.
Upon the issue, at the trial of an action for personal injuries, of the earning capacity of the plaintiff before his injury, evidence was admissible of the amount of tips he received from his employer's customers where it did not appear that the receipt of tips was a breach of any duty he owed his employer.
The extent of cross-examination on the same subject was within the discretionary control of the trial judge.
After the plaintiff in an action for personal injuries had testified that he had not had a physician during a period following his injury, evidence was admissible to the effect that he had been cared for during that period by his father and that the father had been a graduate trained nurse and had been employed in hospitals as an assistant supervisor.
After a physician, called by the plaintiff at the trial of an action for personal injuries, had testified in cross-examination that the plaintiff's condition could have been caused by various diseases, he was properly permitted to testify in redirect examination that the plaintiff did not have any of those diseases.
A bald exception by the defendant to the reading by the trial judge of a portion of a pre-trial report containing an admission of material facts by counsel for the defendant was overruled.
TORT. Writ in the Superior Court dated October 4, 1934.
Before Morton, J., there was returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $9,865, of which the plaintiff remitted all in excess of $8,000; and the judge reported the case for determination by this court of exceptions saved by the defendant.
J. W. Vaughan, for the defendant.
A. S. Allen, (N.C. Cushner with him,) for the plaintiff.
defendant's restaurant, in the early morning of April 14, 1934, when three or four noisy, boisterous men, using profane language, entered the restaurant and started a commotion at the food counter. The plaintiff left the table, paid the check for the food and returned to the side of the table away from the aisle. He suggested to his wife that they leave. When he then glanced around he "saw these two men in white coats pushing or assisting, I don't know what you would call it, but they were all coming up the aisle slow, and profane language was being used by all the men." As he leaned over the table to tell his wife to get out of the way, the defendant's night manager pushed him on to the table or pushed him so that he fell face down upon the table and some one then fell upon him causing him serious personal injury. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and the trial judge reported the case upon certain rulings upon evidence.
by the employee would not be a breach of any duty he owed his employer. Powers's Case, 275 Mass. 515. Babikian v. Brown, 293 Mass. 195. But this is not a suit to recover for wages. The loss of wages as such is not an element of damages. The amount of wages the plaintiff received for his services is competent for the purpose of shedding some light upon the value of the plaintiff's capacity to earn. We assume that the charge was correct and complete, and that the jury were properly instructed as to the plain distinction between loss of wages and diminution in earning capacity and the relation of the former to the latter. Doherty v. Ruiz, 302 Mass. 145, and cases cited. The determination of damages for the impairment of earning capacity is not susceptible to arithmetical calculation; its ascertainment must, to a large degree depend upon the practical sagacity, common knowledge and good sense of the jury in considering the age, skill, training, experience and industry of the plaintiff, the extent of his physical injury, the wages commonly received by one pursuing a similar occupation in the vicinity of the plaintiff's employment, and whatever other evidence is introduced to aid them in arriving at a just conclusion. Maynard v. Royal Worcester Corset Co. 200 Mass. 1. Cross v. Sharaffa, 281 Mass. 329.
Counsel for the defendant claimed an exception to the refusal of the judge to permit him to inquire of the plaintiff whether his wife was employed. If the colloquy between the judge and counsel is sufficient to show that an exception was saved by the defendant, it is plain that it has no merit because the plaintiff had previously testified in cross-examination by the defendant's counsel that his wife was employed. The evidence sought was already in testimony, and the number of times the same inquiry may be repeated to a witness is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the judge, which in the present instance is not shown to have been abused. Coker v. Ropes, 125 Mass. 577. Jordan v. C. I. T. Corp. 302 Mass. 281.
compelled to go home; and that on the day of the accident he was treated by his wife and father, who applied certain remedies. After he had testified upon cross-examination that he had not called any physician before he went to work that morning, the plaintiff, over the defendant's exception, was permitted to testify that his father, although in the postal service, had been a graduate trained nurse, and that he had been employed as an assistant supervisor in various hospitals. The evidence was admissible to show that the plaintiff had received proper treatment, to explain his conduct as reasonable in the circumstances, and to anticipate a possible argument by the defendant that the injuries were not serious as no physician had been called to treat the plaintiff.
A physician who described the plaintiff's condition, which in his opinion was caused by the accident, testified in cross-examination that the plaintiff's condition could have been caused by various diseases. He was properly permitted to testify on redirect examination that the plaintiff did not have any of these diseases. His opinion could have been found to have been based upon facts which were contained in the evidence. The evidence was competent to show that the plaintiff's condition was due to the accident and not attributable to any other cause. Commonwealth v. Russ, 232 Mass. 58. Coddaire v. Sibley, 270 Mass. 41. Campanale v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 290 Mass. 149. Wallace v. Ludwig, 292 Mass. 251. Kramer v. New York Life Ins. Co. 293 Mass. 440. Abdow v. Silverbrand, 301 Mass. 337.
or four persons from its premises. The pre-trial report was dated December 2, 1937, and was apparently taken by the judge from the original papers in the case. It was in the usual form of such a report and was referred to as a "pre-trial slip, pre-trial report." The defendant does not contend that it was not prepared or signed by the judge who presided at the pre-trial hearing. It fails to point out anything that would cast the slightest doubt upon the genuineness of the report.
One of the purposes of the pre-trial procedure is the narrowing and simplification of the issues by a stipulation or an admission by counsel concerning them. It must be presumed that counsel appreciated the force and effect that such a stipulation or admission should have in the trial of the case. An admission made by an attorney at the pretrial hearing is binding upon his client unless good cause to the contrary is shown. The judge has the power to discharge a stipulation entered into under a misapprehension. Graustein v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. 293 Mass. 207. Fanciullo v. B. G. & S. Theatre Corp. 297 Mass. 44. Capano v. Melchionno, 297 Mass. 1. Gurman v. Stowe-Woodward, Inc. 302 Mass. 442. The trial judge may alter the issues, modify the admissions or discharge the stipulation if satisfied that justice requires it. The matter is now governed by Rule 57A of the Superior Court (1932) which provides that the order made by the judge at the pre-trial hearing "will control the subsequent conduct of the case unless modified at the trial to prevent manifest injustice."
and that the counterman in the performance of his duties was then attempting to eject three or four persons from the defendant's premises. Each of the facts recited would be competent evidence upon the liability of the defendant. Such facts established the agency of the defendant's employee. They were conceded by one authorized to bind the defendant. That they were shown by a stipulation rather than by oral testimony is immaterial.
In the case at bar counsel for the defendant sought not to change but to exclude the report. He, however, as shown by the record, did not specify what changes he desired to have made in the report to make it conformable to what he contended occurred at the pre-trial hearing. He did not point out what admissions he conceded were made or offer any explanation that would indicate that a mistake was made. The record does not disclose that he offered to introduce any evidence to support his contention. Upon this record, a bald exception taken to the reading of the pretrial report is untenable. Rule 57A of the Superior Court (1932). Capano v. Melchionno, 297 Mass. 1, 16. R. Dunkel, Inc. v. V. Barletta Co. 302 Mass. 7. Gurman v. Stowe-Woodward, Inc. 302 Mass. 442, 444. Konstantine v. Dearborn, 280 Mich. 310.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.