Court Opinion

ID: 9637755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:18:33.101925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:00.128894
License: Public Domain

SWAN, Circuit Judge,
(dissenting).
I agree that it was error to admit the evidence relating to compensation insurance 'but I am not convinced that it was harmful error. During the interrogation of Plough the judge repeatedly stated that the evidence bore only on the question of credibility, and the final instruction in his charge reads as follows: “ * * * there is certain evidence in this case with reference to compensation. Now, as I said before, that evidence was received solely on the question of the credibility of the witness himself, and it is only to be considered in that respect.
*257“If you arrive at a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, no reduction should be made by reason of what you might assume was paid through any compensation act. That evidence was received only as bearing on the credibility of the witness testifying.”
Plough testified that he did not hear any crossing signal but the evidence that the whistle was blown was overwhelming. After retiring for its deliberations the jury returned to the court to ask that the testimony of the witnesses who testified as to the whistle be read to them. The jury’s acceptance of this evidence is the obvious and reasonable explanation of its verdict for the defendant. Under these circumstances I think that the evidence as to compensation insurance was not prejudicial, and that the judgments should be affirmed. 28 U.S.C.A. § 391.