This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P suffered serious brain injuries resulting in amnesia while a passenger in a car driven by D. P sued D and propounded discovery. D conceded negligence but made it plain that his defense would be based on contributory negligence; P had joined D with another in consuming two bottles of vodka in a short space of time right before the accident. P moved to require D to produce statements that D and the other passenger made to D's insurance company after the accident. That was denied. D was out of town, and D's attorney answered the interrogatories. D got the verdict and P appealed contending that the court erred in upholding D's answers to interrogatories as given under oath by defense counsel rather by defendant personally.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.