Court Opinion

ID: 9611686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:59:24.714783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:15.861713
License: Public Domain

McALLISTER, J.,
specially concurring.
When defendant’s counsel elected to cross swords with an expert adverse witness, he assumed the risk inherent in the encounter. Defendant attempted to elicit from plaintiff’s doctor a statement that plaintiff’s recovery would be accelerated if the case was settled. Counsel should not have been surprised when the doctor declined to help prove defendant’s case.
Both the question and answer were in the ab*329stract. There is no statement that this defendant was insured or that this defendant’s insurance company hounded this plaintiff. I agree with Denecke, J., that under the circumstances there was room for the trial court to find the error non-prejudieial.