Court Opinion

ID: 9707669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:17:57.123183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:36.485408
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Bowen, C. J.
This court in its original opinion held that the question of excessive damages was not before this court by reason of the fact that the appellant *130omitted to set forth in its original brief the testimony of Dr. E. L. Fitzimmons who treated the appellee for her injuries. The appellant contends that since this appeal was taken on the 29th of March, 1950, that the decisions cited in the original opinion construing Rule 2-18 of the Rules of the Supreme Court were not applicable, and that by reason of such Rule 2-18, which is applicable to all appeals taken from and after February 1, 1950, that the burden is upon the appellee to set forth in its brief the parts it alleges have been omitted from appellant’s brief, and that the appellant’s brief, therefore, cannot be attacked successfully on the grounds that, it is insufficient.
While such Rule 2-18, as amended, requires the appellee to supply defects, where the appellant has failed to set forth material testimony which is necessary for a consideration of the questions raised in súch appeal, the failure of appellee to supply such .omitted testimony does not relieve the appellant from the burden of presenting a.proper record to enable this court to pass upon the various questions presented upon their merits.
It seems clear that the rule cited in the original opinion is not abrogated by the amendment of Rule 2-18.
Appellant further respectfully urges that the court in passing upon the question of misconduct of counsel referred to the fact that the testimony of the two doctors in this case was sharply conflicting and could not be reconciled and- that one doctor had testified from a brief examination that there had been no fracture of appellee’s wrist. The misconduct of counsel complained of presented the question of the látitude which may be permitted in the cross-examination of an expert -witness, and the appellant insists that the testimony of the doctor which was omitted from its *131brief should not be considered in passing upon this question of misconduct of counsel in view of the fact that the court did not consider it on the question of excessive damages. While it is proper for a court of appeal to search the record to affirm, as the court did in the original opinion, however, on rehearing and re-examination of the record on the question of misconduct of counsel without considering the doctor’s testimony which was omitted in appellant’s original brief, by reason of the latitude permitted in the cross-examination of expert witnesses, we cannot say that the. court erred in refusing to discharge the jury, upon appellant’s motion, for such alleged misconduct of counsel.
We have carefully considered the appellant’s petition for rehearing, and the same is hereby denied.
Note. — Reported in 102 N. E. 2d 504.