Opinion ID: 1936270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First to be reviewed is the matter of damage evidence as it relates to plaintiff's accident related lost earnings.

Text: In course of trial plaintiff's income tax returns for 1963 through 1969 were prefatorily admitted in evidence, and later taken to the jury room. Plaintiff also related her injury associated loss of time in remunerative employment and the manner by which her services as a wife and mother had been diminished. She also described in some detail the pain experienced by her prior to and at time of trial. Finally, on direct examination, she was asked this question: Well, are you able to state exactly how much earnings loss you have had as a result of your injuries in this collision that occurred on July 16, 1967, Mrs. Carradus? Defendants then interposed the objection:    there is no proper foundation. This calls for an opinion and conclusion. It invades the province of the Court and jury, and calls upon the witness to speculate and conjecture and to pass judgment on her own damages. Incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. THE COURT: Overruled, You may answer. Do you recall the question? A. Up until this summer I would say around twenty-five hundred dollars. Noticeably, the questions quoted above called for nothing more than a yes or no answer. So the objection voiced was both inappropriate and premature. Furthermore, no motion was made to strike the response given as a voluntary statement. Thus the answer remained for consideration. Stated otherwise, error, if any, was waived. See Harrison v. Ulicki, 193 N.W. 2d 533, 537 (Iowa 1972); Patton v. Town of Sanborn, 133 Iowa 650, 654, 110 N.W. 1032 (1907). See also 1 Wigmore on Evidence, § 18 at 344 (3d ed.); 3 Jones on Evidence, § 895 (4th ed.).