|Action for damages
arising out of an automobile collision on June 1. Liability is conceded.
The issue is whether P sustained neck and back injuries in the
accident or whether the injuries are feigned. At trial, on direct examination,
P testified that he did not go to see a doctor until two months
after the collision because he did not have the money to pay a doctor. On
cross-examination it was brought out that P had a health and accident
insurance policy that would have covered the cost of seeing a doctor and
also that P was receiving a Veterans' Administration pension of
$90 a month that could have been used to defray at least some of the cost.
In rebuttal, P offered the testimony of a witness to testify to
P's good reputation for truth and veracity. On D's objection,
what ruling and why?