Hammond v. Long Island Railroad

Plaintiff’s counsel in his opening made an inexcusable statement that since this accident defendant’s crossing- bell had been changed. After-wards, however, defendant’s photographer by mistaken identification introduced his pictures showing the later form of bell. Cross-examination exposing the photographer’s error then legitimately brought this change of bell before the jury. Otherwise such improper reference to changes after the accident would have required a new trial. Upon the issue whether the automatic bell was sounding as the train approached this crossing, plaintiff introduced…