Josephine T. Comer, Administratrix of the Estate of Harold v. Comer v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company

Second Circuit

Josephine T. Comer, Administratrix of the Estate of Harold v. Comer v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company

323 F.2d 863, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3925

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 22, 1963

Docket28096_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 323 F.2d 863 (Josephine T. Comer, Administratrix of the Estate of Harold v. Comer v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Josephine T. Comer, Administratrix of the Estate of Harold v. Comer v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 323 F.2d 863, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3925 (2d Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in open court a judgment entered on a jury verdict for defendant in this F. E. L. A. death action against the Pennsylvania Railroad. It is claimed that a verdict should have been directed in plaintiff’s favor and that it was prejudicial error to receive in evidence a record card of the railroad containing matter relating to the conduct of a “key” witness for plaintiff and to his discharge or resignation from the employ of the railroad. There is ample evidence to support the verdict. Indeed, plaintiff barely made out a prima facie case. It would have been plain error had plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict been granted. As the proof objected to tended to establish the hostility of the witness to the railroad it was independ *864 ently admissible for consideration by the jury on the issue of the credibility of the witness. Such evidence, unlike that of proof of prior inconsistent statements, requires no foundation by questions on the cross-examination of the witness. United States v. Beekman, 2 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 580; People v. McDowell, 1961, 9 N.Y.2d 12, 210 N.Y.S.2d 514, 172 N.E.2d 279. The trial judge instructed the jury that this proof was to be considered solely on the issue of the credibility of the witness.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in open court a judgment entered on a jury verdict for defendant in this F. E. L. A. death action against the Pennsylvania Railroad. It is claimed that a verdict should have been directed in plaintiff’s favor and that it was prejudicial error to receive in evidence a record card of the railroad containing matter relating to the conduct of a “key” witness for plaintiff and to his discharge or resignation from the employ of the railroad. There is ample evidence to support the verdict. Indeed, plaintiff barely made out a prima facie case. It would have been plain error had plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict been granted. As the proof objected to tended to establish the hostility of the witness to the railroad it was independ *864 ently admissible for consideration by the jury on the issue of the credibility of the witness. Such evidence, unlike that of proof of prior inconsistent statements, requires no foundation by questions on the cross-examination of the witness. United States v. Beekman, 2 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 580; People v. McDowell, 1961, 9 N.Y.2d 12, 210 N.Y.S.2d 514, 172 N.E.2d 279. The trial judge instructed the jury that this proof was to be considered solely on the issue of the credibility of the witness.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 F.2d 863, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/josephine-t-comer-administratrix-of-the-estate-of-harold-v-comer-v-ca2-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack