Dimarco v. Smith
Corradina Dimarco v. Earl F. Smith.
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
“It is common learning that a party obtaining a responsive answer to a question asked by himself has waived objection by the very asking.” 5 Wig. Ev., (1st ed), 14. If the rule has any exceptions, the case here is not within them.
Furthermore, although evidence that a party is or is not insured against the liability for which he is sued is incompetent, yet “The fact of insurance may incidentally and unavoidably appear.”
Piechuck v. Magusiak, 82 N. H. 429, 431. The evidence therefore does not necessarily render the trial unfair.
Emerson v. Cobb, 88 N. H.
*379 199, 202. The plaintiff did not seek to have the evidence stricken out and the jury instructed to disregard it. If not estopped by eliciting the evidence, he cannot maintain that it constituted incurable error as matter of law.
Judgment on the verdict.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 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.