Court Opinion

ID: 9852422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:30:11.180965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:27.629096
License: Public Domain

V. J. Brennan, J.,
(dissenting). Since my reading of the entire record here leads me to a different conclusion than that reached by my colleagues, I must dissent. The civil-advocacy structure allows for the tenacious pursuit of circumstances that arise in lawsuits which may be favorable, upon closer inquiry, to the position of one of the parties. If plaintiff’s attorney was guilty of any exaggeration as to the amount of previous accidents, and I’m not convinced he was, it was not reversible error.
Plaintiff’s counsel learned in pretrial depositions of defendant’s employees that there had been previous accidents involving this pit. This was brought to his attention by the deposition of Mr. Anthony Hobbs, a Sears’ garage employee at the time of the accident. The following is the testimony of Mr. Hobbs on recross-examination by plaintiff’s counsel:
”Q. Do you recall this question being asked of you on deposition and your answer being given and this is the deposition that was taken in December of 1972. * * * Do you recall this: 'Q. Have you ever seen anyone fall into this pit when you were working there? A. No, I have not. I have not seen anybody fall in there. Before, not while I was working there, someone — one guy — one of the guys employed, he slipped in there once in a *729while.’ Would that mean more than once if he slipped in there once in a while?
"A. Yes, it would mean more than once.
”Q. It would be more than once?
“A. Yes, sir.”
The disclosure of these facts during pretrial depositions clearly put plaintiff on notice that there had been other accidents. At this point it became plaintiff counsel’s duty to pursue that line of questioning. Defendant later introduced evidence showing that the previous accidents described by Mr. Hobbs were not of the same nature that plaintiff endured and the record shows that the jury was made fully aware of this.
The record clearly shows that there had been at least one previous accident in this pit although it did not occur in the same manner as plaintiffs. The record also shows that the defense more than adequately answered each and every allegation of plaintiff and thoroughly cross-examined all the witnesses so that by the conclusion of the trial the jury was made fully aware of the entire history and kinds of accidents that occurred in this pit area. They did not go to the jury room confused or uncertain as to the past-accident question. This question was handled extensively on direct and cross-examination through various witnesses until finally it became the jury’s task to weigh all the evidence and reach a verdict, which they did.
Aside from the claims of previous accidents, there was more than sufficient proof to show negligence on behalf of the defendant in the maintenance of this pit area. I am convinced that plaintiff maintained his burden of proof in this case and that the jury was similarly convinced that defendant was negligent. The proofs presented herein more than supported the verdict.
I would affirm.