Court Opinion

ID: 9449554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:15:01.47605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:52.704077
License: Public Domain

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit
Judge (dissenting).
Because plaintiff in this case recovered a verdict of $37,500, upon evidence showing a very doubtful basis for liability against the employer, and because of improper and prejudicial argument to the jury by plaintiff’s counsel, over objection, which was unfair to defendant, I respectfully dissent.
Plaintiff, a cook in the employ of defendant railway company, was in the yard in Chicago, on one of the sleeping cars being assembled for the Super Chief,, scheduled to leave Chicago at 6:30 P.M.,, August 15, 1959. The evidence shows, without contradiction, that it was customary for defendant to “bring out a red carpet” for the passengers just prior to loading at the Chicago depot. This carpet was placed on each of the vestibule *320floors of the cars. Plaintiff came on duty before these carpets were laid on the day in question. He testified that he slipped on the floor of the vestibule of the sleeping car Regal Crest and sustained an injury to his right leg, for which he brought suit.
Then his attorney was permitted to argue to the jury that plaintiff was “a working fellow” and “Maybe you just want to save the carpeting for the cash-paying, luxury-treated customers that get •on and pay an extra fare, whatever it is, so that they can walk on the carpeting”.
His alleged poverty was again emphasized before the jury through examination by his lawyer who elicited information that plaintiff had spent “all the little money that I had”, “some of it was railroad fare for my wife whose mother was ill”, followed quickly by a question which •elicited this answer: “Well, my pass rights were taken away from me.” Although an objection to this last reference to the pass was sustained by the court, its effect on the jury was probably not erased thereby.
During the argument to the jury, plaintiff’s counsel said: “He [the plaintiff] knows that he has a family to support and he starts thinking, especially •after the first trip out.”
An objection to the comment, brought “this response from plaintiff’s attorney: “I am sorry, his wife. He has got an eighteen-year-old son.” However, in a pretrial deposition, plaintiff indicated that he had an illegitimate 18-year old daughter, who did not live with him.
Whether he had a family is immaterial in the case at bar. Its sole effect was to arouse sympathy for plaintiff and prejudice defendant, to the end that the jury might be influenced to find in favor of plaintiff, and to increase his award of damages.
While the record is repléte with other instances of prejudice of this kind, the foregoing illustrations will suiflce.
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.