Case Name: BROINER et al v. SILVERMAN
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1922-02-20
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 814
Docket Number: 
Parties: BROINER et al v. SILVERMAN
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 814–815

Head Matter:
No. 840
BROINER et al v. SILVERMAN
Ohio Appeals, 1st District, Hamilton County
Decided February 20, 1922
To appear in 16 Appeal Reports
55. BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS.
Reviewing court may consider bill of exception as to questional asked jurors, on voire dire examinj tion, although bill shows all questions asked are nl included in it — Acquaintance of jurors with an if surance. company agent involved in a personal il jury case, not. prejudicial, when — Hospital recoj showing statement of a previous ailment» may refused in evidence, where only bearing on case | <o embarrass and humiliate plaintiff.

Opinion:
OFFICIAL SYLLABI
1. Questions asked jurors on voir dire examination which are claimed to he objectionable and are contained in the bill of exceptions may be considered by a reviewing court although all of the questions asked on voir dire examination are not included in the record and the certificate of the trial judge states that the bill of exceptions is not complete.
2. Upon the voir dire examination of jurors in a personal injury case between individuals, questions as to whether the jurors knew certain persons connected with an insurance company are not prejudicial where the persons named are not called as witnesses and the questions do not go to the extent of apprising the jurors that there is an insurance company financially interested in the final outcome of the case.
3. In such aetion a request for a physical exami-of plaintiff made on, the morning of the trial the jury has been empaneled may be refused TTy-the court where an examination was had seven weeks after the accident and about four months before trial.
4. The court, in such case, may refuse to permit the introduction of a hospital record showing plaintiff's statement as to physical ailment from whieh he previously suffered where there is nothing in such record to show that the matter referred to would tend to cause any of the symptoms or injuries complained of and has no bearing on the case, but would only humiliate and embarrass plaintiff.