[Download] "Louisville Water Co. v. Robinson" by Court Of Appeals Of Kentucky ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Louisville Water Co. v. Robinson
- Author : Court Of Appeals Of Kentucky
- Release Date : January 02, 1950
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 53 KB
Description
CAMMACK, Justice. Lula Mae Robinson sustained a sacroiliac sprain when she fell in one of the Louisville Water Company's meter wells on April 10, 1948. She recovered a judgment for $2,400.00 against the Water Company. It is admitted that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the submission of the case to the jury. The Company vigorously contends, however, that the judgment is erroneous because (1) the appellee's counsel was guilty of gross misconduct in his closing argument to the jury; and (2) the verdict is so excessive as to indicate passion and prejudice, and probably was the result of the improper argument of the appellee's counsel. The first question relates to the evidence of Kenneth A. Gnau, an employee of the Water Company. On cross-examination this witness was asked whether it was raining when he examined the broken cover on the water meter well on April 16th. After he said it was raining on that date, counsel for the appellee handed him a sheet of paper headed 'Department of Commerce -- Weather Bureau,' apparently for the purpose of having the witness tell the jury what that paper showed about the rainfall on April 16th. Counsel for the appellant objected on the ground that the appellee's counsel was asking the witness to read something which he knew to be highly incompetent. The objection was sustained. During the closing argument of counsel for the appellee the Company's counsel objected to a reference by the former to the weather report. The objection was sustained. The appellee's counsel then said, 'Who is trying to hide the facts in this case?' The Company's counsel objected to this remark, which was sustained. He then moved the court to discharge the jury and reassign the case for trial, which motion was overruled. The question put to Mr. Gnau about the Weather Bureau report was incompetent, but the objection thereto was sustained. It was improper to refer to the paper in the closing argument to the jury, but an objection was again sustained. Likewise, it was improper to ask the question, 'Who is trying to hide the facts in this case?' But here again an objection was sustained. The question is, Was the conduct of the appellee's counsel so highly improper as to warrant the discharge of the jury, notwithstanding the sustaining of objections of counsel for the Company. We think not, because the verdict does not strike us as being excessively large.