FRASCA
v.
HOWELL ET AL.; WOLTZ V. HOWELL ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for a new trial based on inadequate verdicts, nor did it err in refusing certain jury instructions.
Plaintiffs sustained personal injuries in an automobile collision and sued for negligence. The jury returned verdicts substantially above proven speci…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fed. R. Civ. P. 51 cases and more on FLexlaw
PROCTOR,. Circuit Judge.
These appeals arise out of negligence actions for personal injuries sustained by appellants (plaintiffs) in an automobile collision. The cases were tried together before court and jury. A separate verdict was returned for each plaintiff in amounts-substantially above -her proven special damages. Nevertheless, plaintiffs moved for a new trial upon the ground that the verdicts were inadequate. Their appeals are based upon the court’s action in overruling the motions and in denying certain requested jury instructions.
A motion for new trial is committed lo the trial court’s discretion. The record here reveáis no abuse of that discretion in denying the motions in question; therefore, the court’s disposition of them must stand. Although we may think the amounts awarded are small, they cannot be disturbed for that reason alone. It would be an unwarranted encroachment upon the province of the jury, as well as of the trial court. Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co., 1933, 287 U.S. 474, 53 S.Ct. 252, 77 L.Ed. 439; Dean v. Century Motors, Inc., 1946, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 9, 154 F. 2d 201; Ramsey v. Ross, 1936, 66 App.D.C. 186, 85 F. 2d 685; Washington Railway & Electric Company v. Upperman, 1918, 47 App.D.C. 219. See, generally, Miller v. Maryland Casualty Co., 2 Cir., 1930, 40 F. 2d 463.
Appellant Woltz also complains of the court’s refusal of requested instructions to the jury concerning the measure of damage. It is enough to point out that Rule 51 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. prohibits a party assigning as error “the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.” There was a total failure to comply with this salutary rule. No objection was made at any time to denial of the proposed instructions. Therefore, the present assignments of error cannot be considered. We think, however, that on the whole the charge was very fair and sufficiently covered all the recoverable elements of damage; hence, even had the prayers been acceptable no harmful effects resulted from their rejection.
The judgments are
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Montgomery v. Va. Stage Lines, Inc., 191 F.2d 770 (D.C. Cir. 1951)
-
Rankin v. Shayne Bros., Inc., 234 F.2d 35 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
-
Williams v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co., 190 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1951)
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fairmount Glass Works v. CUB Fork Coal Co., 287 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1933)
- Miller v. Md. Cas. Co., 40 F.2d 463 (2d Cir. 1930)
- Dean v. Century Motors, Inc., 154 F.2d 201 (D.C. Cir. 1946)
- Ramsey v. Ross, 85 F.2d 685 (D.C. Cir. 1936)