Court Opinion

ID: 9809152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:02:22.593485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:25:20.217566
License: Public Domain

Hoke, J.,
concurring: I think there should be a new trial of the cause by reason of misdirection of the court on the first issue. His Honor, being in doubt as to how far the former rulings of the Court were an estoppel in the present trial, and with a view of developing the entire facts, in the laudable endeavor, no doubt, to make an end of a protracted litigation, submitted the question of defendant’s responsibility on two issues, one having reference to the conduct of Cannon, the conductor, and the second to that of Van Amringe, the baggage master. In charging the jury on the first issue, that referring to Garmon, he permitted the jury to consider the conduct of any other employee on defendant’s train, which would include *530tbe conduct of Yan Amringe, and we are, therefore, unable to determine in what aspect of the evidence the responsibility has been fixed on defendant nor what exceptions are open to defendant on the record; and this position, foo, is in contravention of the former opinion in the cause. This was, no doubt, an inadvertence on the part of his Honor, but it has operated to defendant’s prejudice to a degree that, to my mind, constitutes and should be held for reversible error. The authorities, too, favor the position that in actions for personal injuries interest is not a proper element of damages to be allowed.