Kellihan v. McHutt

201 P. 37, 70 Colo. 318, 1921 Colo. LEXIS 334
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedOctober 3, 1921
DocketNo. 9824
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 201 P. 37 (Kellihan v. McHutt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kellihan v. McHutt, 201 P. 37, 70 Colo. 318, 1921 Colo. LEXIS 334 (Colo. 1921).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Teller

delivered the opinion of the court.

Defendant in error was plaintiff in an action against plaintiff in error and one Ransom to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff as the result of the misconduct of the' defendants named. Verdict and judgment were for plaintiff, and defendant Kellihan brings the cause here for review.

Plaintiff claimed damages for injury suffered from unskillful, unsafe and harmful treatment, and from drugs improperly administered to him by defendants. He sought also to recover various sums alleged to have been expended for living expenses, while under said treatment; also exemplary damages. The verdict was for $1,000 actual damages, $5,000 exemplary damages. The verdict for exemplary damages was set aside by the court.

It is unnecessary to determine a number of questions raised by plaintiff in error, as the judgment must be reversed on the ground of the admission of improper evidence. Over the objection of defendants, plaintiff was permitted to testify to the various items of special damages set out in the complaint, including the amount that he paid for board and room, for sixteen weeks; for medical tests, and laundry bills. These payments were in no sense the result of the action of the defendants. The plaintiff’s living expenses do not appear from the evidence to have been increased by the alleged improper treatment by the defendants, and the amount of such expense was entirely immaterial in the case. Graeber v. Derwin, 43 Cal. 495.

On a general verdict it is impossible to say of what items the same is made up, and the admission of this evidence must, therefore, be held to be prejudicial error.

The judgment is reversed.

Mr. Justice Bailey and Mr. Justice Allen concur.

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

Related

Publix Cab Co. v. Colorado National Bank of Denver
338 P.2d 702 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
201 P. 37, 70 Colo. 318, 1921 Colo. LEXIS 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kellihan-v-mchutt-colo-1921.