STEPHEN C. SOKOL
v.
STANLEY J. GUSSACK, EDWIN SWAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A SWAN'S SERVICE, APPELLANTS
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 defendants waived their right to appeal the denial of a directed verdict by failing to renew the motion at the close of all evidence, and that the denial of a new trial was not an abuse of discretion.
Plaintiff sued for personal injury and obtained a jury verdict. Defendants appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying their motion for a direc…
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 Waiver Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff in an action for personal injury. Reversal of the judgment is urged on two grounds.
The first specification of error relates to the denial of the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict made at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence. An examination of the original record reveals that the motion was not renewed at the close of all the evidence and the issues were submitted to the jury on instructions to which there were no objections. It is well settled that the failure of a defendant to move for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence constitutes a waiver of any error there might have been in the denial of a similar motion made at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence. Gebhardt v. Wilson Freight Forwarding Company, 348 F. 2d 129, 132 (3 Cir., 1965) and cases therein cited. The waiver precludes consideration of the alleged error on appeal. Ibid.
The second specification of error relates to the denial of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Such a motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its denial is ordinarily not reviewable in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company, 350 F. 2d 479, 482 (3 Cir., 1965), cert. den. 382 U.S. 987, 86 S.Ct. 549, 15 L.Ed.2d 475. There is no such showing in the instant case.
The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co., 350 F.2d 479 (3d Cir. 1965)
- Thompson v. Kawasaki Kisen, 382 U.S. 987 (U.S. 1966)
- Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. Pritchard, 382 U.S. 987 (U.S. 1966)
- Gebhardt v. Wilson Freight Forwarding Co., 348 F.2d 129 (3d Cir. 1965)