 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hamm v. McCarty12/21/1988
CACIOPPO, Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant, William Hamm, appeals from a judgment denying relief on a personal injury claim.
Late on the evening of August 22, 1986, Hamm was severely injured in an automobile collision involving defendant-appellee, John McCarty. The accident occurred at the intersection of Route 94 and Reimer Road in Wadsworth. McCarty was traveling north on Route 94, where the posted speed limit was thirty-five miles per hour. Hamm was traveling east on Reimer Road which ends in a "T" intersection at Route 94, where a stop sign is posted for the Reimer Road traffic. Hamm was driving a Chevrolet Citation and had three passengers in the car when he was struck broadside by McCarty.
The evidence adduced at trial showed that McCarty had been drinking that evening, and a blood-alcohol test showed a result of .20 percent of alcohol by weight. There was also testimony from various witnesses as to the speed of McCarty's vehicle at the time of the impact. McCarty's passenger testified that McCarty was traveling at approximately forty miles per hour, while Dr. David Uric, the plaintiff's expert on reconstruction of automobile collisions, estimated McCarty's speed to have been between fifty-four and sixty-two miles per hour.
Steven Lance, a passenger in Hamm's vehicle, testified on cross-examination that, when they came to the stop sign, he could see the headlights of McCarty's approaching car; Hamm never stopped, but rather proceeded through the intersection at approximately twenty miles per hour and the collision occurred. Steven Lance also stated that Hamm had failed to heed stop signs at the two intersections just before the intersection at Route 94.
In his complaint, Hamm alleged that McCarty was negligent and reckless in the operation of his vehicle, and sought compensatory as well as punitive damages. During the jury trial, Hamm attempted to introduce the testimony of Jeff Lance and Kevin Homonai to support his allegations concerning McCarty's state of mind. Jeff Lance and Homonai were to testify that just prior to the collision, at an intersection less than one mile before the location of the accident, McCarty had driven through a red light at high speed. Defense counsel objected to the testimony as being irrelevant, and the trial court sustained the objection on that basis. Jeff Lance and Homonai were permitted to testify as to McCarty's speed, but not to the fact that McCarty had driven through the light.
At the close of the plaintiff's case, defense counsel moved for a directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages due to lack of evidence upon whicsthe court could submit the issue to the jury. The trial court granted the motion on these grounds.
The jury was instructed, inter alia, on the law of comparative negligence. In response to the interrogatories submitted, the jury found the defendant negligent and found that negligence to be a direct and proximate cause of Hamm's injuries. The jury further found that the plaintiff was negligent, that his negligence was a direct and proximate cause of his injuries, and that the plaintiff's negligence was greater than that of the defendant. Thus, Hamm was denied recovery and now appeals.
"The court erred by refusing the plaintiff's proffer of testimony from two witnesses that the defendant had failed to stop at a red traffic light approximately one quarter of a mile from the accident intersection."
Hamm contends that it was error for the trial court to exclude the testimony of Lance and Homonai as to the fact that McCarty had driven through a red light less than a mile before the accident. We agree
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|