Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

REED v. PHILADELPHIA TRANSP. CO. ET AL. APPEAL REED (07/17/52)

July 17, 1952

REED
v.
PHILADELPHIA TRANSP. CO. ET AL. APPEAL OF REED



COUNSEL

David Kanner, Philadelphia, for appellant.

I. Jerome Stern, Jay B. Leopold, Daniel J. McCauley, Jr., Philadelphia, for appellees.

Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross, Arnold and Gunther, JJ.

Author: Reno

[ 171 Pa. Super. Page 61]

RENO, Judge.

Appellant was injured when a bus of the Philadelphia Transportation Company, in which he was a passenger, collided with the truck owned by Visco. He was rendered unconscious, and was taken to a hospital, where an examination and an X-ray indicated a possible fracture of the right hand and marked tenderness of the head. Eighteen days later a company physician examined him at his home and found: 'The edge of the hand, right hand, was almost double the size of the edge of the left hand, showing a heavy bruise.' Subsequently, he developed a tic which caused a twitch of his shoulders and his face, and the dragging of his leg. Two physicians testified that he was suffering a traumatic neurosis as a result of the accident. Dr. A. M. Ornsteen testified on behalf of defendants that appellant was a malingerer. Liability was admitted, and the jury returned a verdict for $50. Appellant attributes the meagre verdict to the restrictions placed upon his cross-examination of Dr. Ornsteen,

[ 171 Pa. Super. Page 62]

    and the ruling of the trial judge in that regard was the basis of appellant's motion for a new trial which was refused. This appeal followed.

Under cross-examination of Dr. Ornsteen, appellant's counsel developed that the doctor had testified in many cases over a long period of time, for the company and others, although he skillfully evaded exact numbers, which he called 'statistics'. He testified that he had received $50 for his pre-trial examination of appellant, and to the question, 'What is your arrangement to be paid for testifying here?' he answered, 'There are no arrangements made.' Later the following colloquy occurred:

'Q. How much do you expect to get paid for testifying here today?

'Mr. Axelroth: I object.

'The Court: Sustained.

'Mr. Kanner: ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.