Court Opinion

ID: 9671011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:29:30.528608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:07.694251
License: Public Domain

Conley Byrd, Justice, dissenting. This is a wrongful death action allegedly resulting from a rear-end automobile collision. The collision occurred in August of 1967, and death occurred on April 25, 1968, from a heart condition. The big hurdle that appellant’s counsel had was to show that the collision either caused or aggravated the existing heart condition. On this issue appellant’s doctor on cross examination testified that he submitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Carrier regular reports from August 25, 1967, through January 10, 1968, without mentioning any cardio vascular problem. This cross-examination was entirely proper and I doubt that the case could have been tried without reference to the Workmen’s Compensation reports. Appellant’s only objection to the intervention of the Workmen’s Compensation Carrier was as follows: “I would further move in limine that the defense be prohibited from mentioning to the jury the fact of the compensation payment. It is a collateral source and certainly has nothing to do with how much we are entitled to recover in this lawsuit. We want them prohibited from mentioning the fact of the compensation.” We have more than a score of cases holding that an appellant is not entitled to complain of error that is not prejudicial. Since this could not have been tried nor the issues developed without mention of the Workmen’s Compensation claim, I am unable to understand why appellant is entitled to complain of prejudice by the ruling made on his motion. The majority opinion refers to an opening statement by the carrier’s attorney, but since the statement is not in the record, I am unable to see how this court can assume what was said. For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.