Opinion ID: 2352695
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Miscellaneous Errors.

Text: Defendants' last point consists of a melange of episodes occurring during the trial, rather trifling in themselves, which they contend, taken cumulatively, constituted prejudicial error under the rule of Robelen Piano Company v. Di Fonzo, Del., 169 A. 2d 240. We set forth seven classes of these episodes, with brief comments. (1) Answers volunteered by witnesses respecting irrelevant circumstances of the accident. These were natural and spontaneous comments of the witnesses and reflect no studied attempt to disregard the court's ruling. (2) Insistence by plaintiffs' counsel on questioning Mrs. Slattery about the extent of her pain caused by the accident and her pains in childbirth. The court sustained defendants' objections to these questions. (3) Offer in evidence of an unauthenticated photograph. We fail to see any improper conduct in the making of the offer. (4) Improper comment of plaintiffs' counsel in argument to the jury. These points are well taken. Counsel went beyond the bounds of propriety in suggesting to the jury that defendants' objections were designed to suppress pertinent evidence; and also in implying that Gulf should have offered psychiatric treatment to Mrs. Slattery. As to those statements, the court either instructed the jury to disregard them, or they were not objected to. At all events the impropriety was far from being serious enough to require setting aside the verdict. (5) Volunteer statement of Mrs. Slattery's daughter, after having been withdrawn from the witness box by plaintiffs' counsel, that she would like to have her say. The court directed the jury to ignore the statement. (6) Medical testimony that Mrs. Slattery was not malingering. We see no objection to this. It was pertinent to the existence of her illness. (7) Comments by plaintiffs' counsel on defendants' counsel's objections, asserted to be unfairly acrimonious. The best answer to this is the trial judge's remark: All three of you attorneys, it seems to me, are being a little bit    querulous today. In our opinion, these matters, either singly or collectively, do not constitute prejudicial error. The judgment below is affirmed.