Frank v. Corcoran

Ohio Court of Appeals

Frank v. Corcoran

158 N.E. 501, 25 Ohio App. 356, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 600, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 414

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 28, 1926

Docket1708

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 158 N.E. 501 (Frank v. Corcoran) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank v. Corcoran, 158 N.E. 501, 25 Ohio App. 356, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 600, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 414 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

YOUNG, J.

Clara Corcoran brought this action in the Lucas Common Pleas against her brother-in-law George Frank and one Roy St. John for personal injuries as a result of a collision between the automobile of St. John and that of her brother-in-law, in which she was riding at the time. A verdict of $5000 was rendered in favor of Corcoran against Frank; and the jury found that neither Frank nor St. John could recover from the other on their cross-petitions. Judgment was rendered accordingly and Frank prosecuted error; urging among other things that it was error to allow the introduction of evidence of certain statements with reference to whether or not he carried liability insurance. The Court of Appeals held:

1. The rule is well settled in Ohio that the admission of testimony of this kind is clearly erroneous. 20 App. 268.

2. This rule must not be applied so as to render conversations incompetent for the sole reason that liability insurance was discussed by the parties. .

3. Testimony on this point covered conversations at the time of collision; and the court ruled out the testimony complained of, Frank was in no way prejudiced.

4. The charge as a whole was not prejudicial to Frank; and if Corcoran will consent to a remittitur of $1000, judgment will be affirmed as modified; otherwise it will be reversed.

Judgment accordingly.

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

YOUNG, J.

Clara Corcoran brought this action in the Lucas Common Pleas against her brother-in-law George Frank and one Roy St. John for personal injuries as a result of a collision between the automobile of St. John and that of her brother-in-law, in which she was riding at the time. A verdict of $5000 was rendered in favor of Corcoran against Frank; and the jury found that neither Frank nor St. John could recover from the other on their cross-petitions. Judgment was rendered accordingly and Frank prosecuted error; urging among other things that it was error to allow the introduction of evidence of certain statements with reference to whether or not he carried liability insurance. The Court of Appeals held:

1. The rule is well settled in Ohio that the admission of testimony of this kind is clearly erroneous. 20 App. 268.

2. This rule must not be applied so as to render conversations incompetent for the sole reason that liability insurance was discussed by the parties. .

3. Testimony on this point covered conversations at the time of collision; and the court ruled out the testimony complained of, Frank was in no way prejudiced.

4. The charge as a whole was not prejudicial to Frank; and if Corcoran will consent to a remittitur of $1000, judgment will be affirmed as modified; otherwise it will be reversed.

Judgment accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 N.E. 501, 25 Ohio App. 356, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 600, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-v-corcoran-ohioctapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack