Josephine T. Comer, Administratrix of the Estate of Harold v. Comer v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
Josephine T. COMER, Administratrix of the Estate of Harold v. Comer, Plaintiff-Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.