Holt v. Hartschuk

2 Citing cases

  1. Ben M. Hogan Co. v. Nichols

    496 S.W.2d 404 (Ark. 1973)   Cited 9 times
    In Hogan Co., 254 Ark. 771, 496 S.W.2d 404, which was rendered before this court adopted the Arkansas Rules of Evidence in 1986, the expert witness was a doctor who had been retained for purposes of testifying at trial.

    We agree with other jurisdictions that such testimony is especially prejudicial where, as here, the treating physician did not testify. See, e.g., Briney v. Williams, 143 Ind. App. 691, 242 N.E.2d 132. See also, Chicago N.W. Ry. Co. v. Garwood, 167 F.2d 848 (8th Cir. 1948); Holt v. Hartschiek, 96 Ohio App. 491, 122 N.E.2d 653 (1953). Passing now to the point concerning the introduction of appellant Hogan's liability insurance policy, we find that the trial court permitted appellees to introduce in evidence certain clauses in the policy and evidence that premiums thereon were calculated, in part, on amounts paid for hire of vehicles not covered by insurance.

  2. Cusumano v. Bottling Co.

    9 Ohio App. 2d 105 (Ohio Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 33 times

    At most there is some confusion, and possibly there may even have been some hearsay regarding subsequent treatment of the plaintiff; but our reading of the bill of execeptions discloses that it has not infected Dr. Columbi's diagnosis and is not objectionable. Defendant cites Holt v. Hartschuk (1953), 96 Ohio App. 491; Zelenka v. Industrial Commission (1956), 165 Ohio St. 587; Bluebird Baking Co. v. McCarthy (Franklin County Court of Appeals, 1935), 19 Ohio Law Abs. 466; and Fox v. Industrial Commission (Muskingum County Common Pleas Court, 1953), 65 Ohio Law Abs. 343, in support of its contentions. However, a cursory review of these cases displays their inapplicability to the instant situation.