Henson v. Veterans Cab Co.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Henson v. Veterans Cab Co.

167 N.W.2d 794, 16 Mich. App. 219, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1349

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 27, 1969

DocketDocket No. 2,588

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 167 N.W.2d 794 (Henson v. Veterans Cab Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Henson v. Veterans Cab Co., 167 N.W.2d 794, 16 Mich. App. 219, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1349 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

February 18, 1963, plaintiff was a passenger in a taxicab which was struck in the rear by a second vehicle. Suit was commenced against both the cab company and Eugene Leavy, owner-operator of the second vehicle. A jury verdict was returned against both defendants for $12,500.

Defendant cab company appeals and urges as one ground for appellate relief that it was unduly restricted in its right of cross-examination of the plaintiff. The restriction complained of occurred when defendant asked plaintiff if she had not made certain statements relating to her physical condition when she was admitted to the hospital on a prior occasion not related to the present accident. Defendant was precluded from pursuing this line of cross-examination because the hospital records were not in evidence.

This was reversible error. The inquiry was proper and had a direct relation to plaintiff’s alleged injuries in this case. Full cross-examination on this point should have been allowed.

Reversed and remanded for new trial with costs to defendant.

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

Per Curiam.

February 18, 1963, plaintiff was a passenger in a taxicab which was struck in the rear by a second vehicle. Suit was commenced against both the cab company and Eugene Leavy, owner-operator of the second vehicle. A jury verdict was returned against both defendants for $12,500.

Defendant cab company appeals and urges as one ground for appellate relief that it was unduly restricted in its right of cross-examination of the plaintiff. The restriction complained of occurred when defendant asked plaintiff if she had not made certain statements relating to her physical condition when she was admitted to the hospital on a prior occasion not related to the present accident. Defendant was precluded from pursuing this line of cross-examination because the hospital records were not in evidence.

This was reversible error. The inquiry was proper and had a direct relation to plaintiff’s alleged injuries in this case. Full cross-examination on this point should have been allowed.

Reversed and remanded for new trial with costs to defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 N.W.2d 794, 16 Mich. App. 219, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henson-v-veterans-cab-co-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack