
    No. 746
    FRANK v. CORCORAN et
    Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist., Lucas Co.
    
      No. 1708.
    
    Decided June 28, 1926
    480. EVIDENCE — The rule that admission of evidence in reference to statements made by a party to a collision, whether or not he carried liability insurance is erroneous, is not applicable so as to render incompetent conversations discussing liability insurance.
    Attorneys — Smith,.Baker, Effler & Eastman for Frank; F. A. Carabin & George S. Moss for Corcoran; all of Toledo.
   YOUNG, J.

Clara Corcoran brought this action in the Lucas Common Pleas against her brother-in-law George Frank and one Roy St. John for personal injuries as a result of a collision between the automobile of St. John and that of her brother-in-law, in which she was riding at the time. A verdict of $5000 was rendered in favor of Corcoran against Frank; and the jury found that neither Frank nor St. John could recover from the other on their cross-petitions. Judgment was rendered accordingly and Frank prosecuted error; urging among other things that it was error to allow the introduction of evidence of certain statements with reference to whether or not he carried liability insurance. The Court of Appeals held:

1. The rule is well settled in Ohio that the admission of testimony of this kind is clearly erroneous. 20 App. 268.
2. This rule must not be applied so as to render conversations incompetent for the sole reason that liability insurance was discussed by the parties. .
3. Testimony on this point covered conversations at the time of collision; and the court ruled out the testimony complained of, Frank was in no way prejudiced.
4. The charge as a whole was not prejudicial to Frank; and if Corcoran will consent to a remittitur of $1000, judgment will be affirmed as modified; otherwise it will be reversed.

Judgment accordingly.  