EVIDENCE - AVAILABILITY OF EVIDENCE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE JURY- EFFECT OF LACK OF MOTION TO STRIKE

Authors

Michigan Law Review, University of Michigan Law School

Abstract

The plaintiff sued a city for personal in juries sustained as a result of a fall in the street while she was using due care, the fall being caused by a defect in the street. Plaintiff testified on cross-examination that the defect was two and one-half inches from the street car rails, which fact would relieve defendant of liability under sections 3752 and 3755 of the Connecticut General Statutes. The plaintiff, on rebuttal, testified that the defect was twenty-eight inches from the rail. Defendant's counsel objected to this after the answer was given, and the objection was sustained. The verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff was set aside by the court on the defendant's motion. Plaintiff appealed on the ground that as there was no motion to strike the evidence objected to, it was part of the record, could be considered by the jury, and was sufficient to warrant the jury's verdict. Held, even in the absence of a motion to strike, the testimony that the defect was not within eight inches of the rail was not available to support the jury's verdict. Hackenson v. City of Waterbury, 124 Conn. 679, 2 A. (2d) 215 (1938).

Recommended Citation

Michigan Law Review, EVIDENCE - AVAILABILITY OF EVIDENCE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE JURY- EFFECT OF LACK OF MOTION TO STRIKE, 37 Mich. L. Rev. 1320 (1939).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol37/iss8/22