MARCELLA A. HAUGH, APPELLANT,
v.
J. R. CURLEE, APPELLEE
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 failure to object to jury instructions precluded appellate review, and newly discovered evidence did not warrant a new trial.
Plaintiff sued for personal injuries from a car collision and received a jury verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff sought to appeal based on the r…
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 Last Clear Chance Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, plaintiff below, sued to recover for personal injuries received in an automobile collision. The jury returned a verdict for defendant. Two questions are sought to be presented to this Court. (1) Under the facts and circumstances of this case, does the law of Florida require a charge to the jury on the “last clear chance” doctrine? (2) Did the district court abuse its discretion in not granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence ?
The “last clear chance” doctrine was contained in appellant’s requested jury instructions Nos. 6 and 10 which were refused. Even after the trial judge specifically gave an opportunity to object to the jury instructions, counsel failed to do so before the jury retired. We find no plain error resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, appellant has not reserved for appellate review the failure to give an instruction on the last clear chance doctrine. Rule 51, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. The newly discovered evidence in all probability would not produce a different result and there is no adequate showing that this evidence could not by due diligence have been produced at the trial. “Clearly, there was no reviewable abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the motion for new trial upon this ground.” Phillips v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 5 Cir., 1956, 239 F. 2d 79, 82.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sheppard Fed. Credit Union v. Palmer, 408 F.2d 1369 (5th Cir. 1969)
-
In re Westec Corp. v. Orville S. Carpenter for Westec Corp., 434 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1970)
-
Ross v. Up-Right, Inc., 402 F.2d 943 (5th Cir. 1968)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Phillips v. Emp'rs Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. of Wis., 239 F.2d 79 (5th Cir. 1956)