Opinion ID: 2188334
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: loving's trial

Text: In cross-examining Loving, Baker's counsel read a part of Loving's petition in which she alleged lost wages as a result of her injury, although Loving, on cross-examination, admitted that she was unemployed for the 10 years preceding the accident at Baker's. Also, Baker's counsel read into evidence interrogatory No. 13 answered by Loving: Please state in your own words how this accident happened. Answer: Plaintiff and her sister were walking south towards the exit. A man was mopping the floor. When plaintiff approached the man stepped back so plaintiff assumed it would be clear to walk. Plaintiff stepped down with her right foot onto a piece of glass and continued down to twist her right ankle and fell down onto the left knee. To counteract her answer to the interrogatory, Loving testified that only after she had fallen and looked at Jones did she know that he was mopping the floor. A large diagram, exhibit 4, reflecting the floor plan at the spill area was received in evidence and marked by Loving and Jones to show their locations when Loving slipped and fell. A diagram similar to exhibit 4 appeared in the accident report which Loving had submitted to Baker's and which was marked exhibit 10 and received in evidence, but the diagram in exhibit 10 did not depict the same location of the spill or the locations of Loving and Jones. Loving testified that she attended at least three sessions for physical therapy at Immanuel Hospital. Later, a typed list of medical expenses claimed by Loving was received in evidence and showed: 1-14-88 4-23-88 IMMANUEL 161.25. At the conclusion of Loving's testimony, the court commented to the jury, [W]e do have some witnesses coming in apparently tomorrow and no one else is available right now, so we're going to take our evening recess.... The court admonished the jury and recessed the trial until 9:30 the next morning, when Loving's sister, Tomi Thomas, was the first witness to testify and generally corroborated Loving's testimony concerning the accident and supplied a description of Loving's disability and pain after the accident. In cross-examination of Thomas, Baker's lawyer asked whether Loving had told Thomas what she said yesterday in court. Thomas responded: No, she didn't. Baker's lawyer then asked Thomas: Did you talk to her attorney? Thomas answered: This morning, yes. Baker's lawyer: Did he tell you what she testified to? Thomas: No, he didn't. Cross-examination ended shortly thereafter. The subject of any conversation between Thomas and Loving or her lawyer was not pursued on redirect examination. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court instructed the jury: [Y]ou should be governed solely by the evidence introduced before you.... [I]f any of you be personally acquainted with any material or particular fact not supported by the evidence, you should not consider your personal knowledge of such fact or mention it to your fellow jurors. .... ... The law demands of you a just verdict uninfluenced by ... considerations outside the evidence.... The jury returned a verdict for Baker's.