Case Name: CLEVELAND RY. v. KILBANE
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924-12-08
Citations: 3 Ohio Law Abs. 120
Docket Number: No. 5726
Parties: CLEVELAND RY. v. KILBANE
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 3
Pages: 120–120

Head Matter:
No. 211
CLEVELAND RY. v. KILBANE
Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
No. 5726.
December 8, 1924.
465. ERROR—Misapprehension, error or mistake by jury at variance with, credible evidence in record held prerequisite to reversal upon weight of evidence.
480. EVIDENCE—Copy of private report made by physician to counsel not admissible on cross-examination to discredit witness.
Published only in Ohio Law Abstract
Attorneys—Squire, Sanders and Dempsey, for Cleveland Ry.; Cline and Patterson, for Kilbane.

Opinion:
SULLIVAN, J.
Epitomized Opinion
Kilbane obtained judgment in the common pleas against the Cleveland Ry. for personal injuries. Notwithstanding reversal on the weight of evidence was not seriously urged in argument the question is insisted upon. The principal contention, however, is based upon refusal of the trial court to permit the railway to cross examine one Dir. Smith as to possession and contents of a certain written report on the accident made to Kilbane on the theory that the report would be at variance with the oral testimony. A copy of the report only was requested. No effort was made- to secure an inspection provided by 11552, 11553 and 11554 G. C. Affirming the judgment the court of appeals held:
1. A verdict cannot be reversed upon the weight of evidence unless it is clearly and manifestly against the weight of evidence and then only when the record shows some misapprehension, error or mistake by the jury which is at variance with credible evidence in the record.
2. A written report made for a physician to plaintiff as to the nature of his injuries, the contents of which counsel for defendant has no knowledge, is not erroneously refused admission in cross examination to discredit the witness, especially if the paper in question is only a copy and no grounds laid by specific questions for discrediting the witness.
3. Neither is it admissible for explanatory purposes, no notice having been given for inspection.