Court Opinion

ID: 9453761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:23:14.966131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:47.657053
License: Public Domain

SEITZ, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I agree with the opinion of the court that it was error to refuse to admit the testimony proffered by the plaintiff in an attempt to impugn Weber’s testimony. Since the jury nevertheless rendered a verdict for plaintiff, I would here consider the error harmless except for the language of Section 3 of the Federal Employers’' Liability Act (45 U. S.C.A. § 53) which provides in pertinent part that contributory negligence is not a bar to recovery by an employee, but the jury may diminish the damages “in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to such employee * *
Plaintiff’s contributory negligence was clearly in issue in the case. A portion of the evidence relied upon by the defendant in its attempt to prove such negligence was the testimony of Weber. The evidence which was erroneously excluded went directly to the trustworthiness of Weber’s testimony. Its exclusion may have influenced the jury in its consideration of the issue of contributory negligence. Since the jury returned a general verdict for plaintiff, there is no way to determine whether the amount of the recovery was reduced by the jury because it felt plaintiff was *185guilty of contributory negligence. Since the error as to the admissibility of testimony was both substantial and material, I concur in the judgment of reversal.