Ernest M. Thompson v. Block's Incorporated

Fourth Circuit

Ernest M. Thompson v. Block's Incorporated

309 F.2d 325, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3959

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 9, 1962

Docket8663_1

StatusPublished

This text of 309 F.2d 325 (Ernest M. Thompson v. Block's Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ernest M. Thompson v. Block's Incorporated, 309 F.2d 325, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3959 (4th Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant in an action for personal injuries, the sole question is the very narrow one as to whether the plaintiff-appellant was prejudiced by being asked on cross-examination by the defendant’s attorney whether he had had a prior aceident.

We are not persuaded that there was error in permitting the question, especially in light of the Judge’s comment that the inquiry was allowed only for the purpose of ascertaining whether the physical ailments complained of were the result of the injuries in the instant case or an earlier accident. This premise was satisfied at a later stage in the case when the plaintiff’s wife testified on his behalf that the plaintiff had been in a prior accident but had suffered no substantial injuries. Consequently, it cannot be said that the question was proved improper — as suggesting the plaintiff was “accident prone or claim conscious” *326 —when the defendant failed to adduce evidence of a previous injury.

At all events, we cannot say that the propounding of the question, even if objectionable, was prejudicial.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant in an action for personal injuries, the sole question is the very narrow one as to whether the plaintiff-appellant was prejudiced by being asked on cross-examination by the defendant’s attorney whether he had had a prior aceident.

We are not persuaded that there was error in permitting the question, especially in light of the Judge’s comment that the inquiry was allowed only for the purpose of ascertaining whether the physical ailments complained of were the result of the injuries in the instant case or an earlier accident. This premise was satisfied at a later stage in the case when the plaintiff’s wife testified on his behalf that the plaintiff had been in a prior accident but had suffered no substantial injuries. Consequently, it cannot be said that the question was proved improper — as suggesting the plaintiff was “accident prone or claim conscious” *326 —when the defendant failed to adduce evidence of a previous injury.

At all events, we cannot say that the propounding of the question, even if objectionable, was prejudicial.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 F.2d 325, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernest-m-thompson-v-blocks-incorporated-ca4-1962.