Opinion ID: 2199744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: ninth sundry rulings of evidence.

Text: The appellant objected to the testimony of two witnesses on the ground of uncertainty. Both objections seem unsubstantial. He also objected to testimony as to the absence of prior complaints about grease relating to the area where the plaintiff fell. Such testimony seems to us to have some relevance and to have been properly admitted. The appellant also objected to the trial court's refusal to strike out a part of an answer given by the witness Corman on direct examination on the ground that it was not responsive to the question. The statement was that when he examined the hatch covers he saw nothing which would cause a man to fall. He gave substantially the same testimony later. We see no prejudicial error, if there was arror at all, in the trial court's allowing the answer to stand.