GUEST HOUSE MOTOR INN, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MRS. CHRISTINE W. DUKE AND JOHN W. DUKE, APPELLEES
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 district court properly refused the appellant's request for an affirmative charge and that the appellant's objections to jury charges were unavailing.
This is a slip and fall case where the appellant complained about the district court's refusal of an affirmative charge and its jury instructions. The…
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 Liability Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is a slip and fall case in which the appellant complains that the district court erred in refusing appellant’s request for an affirmative charge, with hypothesis, made pursuant to the practice in the state courts. Such a charge is substantially equivalent to a motion for a directed verdict under Rule 50, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. City of Albertville, Ala. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 5 Cir. 1960, 272 F. 2d 594, 601, 84 A.L.R.2d 1. No specific grounds were stated in support of the charge, as required by Rule 50, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and it was therefore properly refused. Moreover, when as here there was evidence which, if believed by the jury would authorize a verdict against the moving party, a directed verdict is not proper. Herron v. Maryland Cas. Co., 5 Cir. 1965, 347 F. 2d 357.
The appellant’s contentions that the district court should not have given certain charges and failed to give other charges are unavailing because appellant failed either to object to the giving or failing to give the charges or to state distinctly the grounds relied upon for its objections. Rule 51, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Pruett v. Marshall, 5 Cir. 1960, 283 F. 2d 436, 440-441.
Finally, the record clearly shows that the mention of liability insurance by the Dukes’ counsel was provoked by a question of the Motor Inn’s counsel about Mrs. Duke’s insurance. Motor Inn cannot therefore complain. Alabama Great S.R.R. v. Gambrell, 1955, 262 Ala. 290, 78 So. 2d 619. Futhermore the district court made clear that such a collateral inquiry had no place in the case.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delancey v. Motichek Towing Serv., Inc., 427 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1970)
-
Bennie Stewart, Jr. v. Thigpen, 730 F.2d 1002 (5th Cir. 1984)
-
J.C. Bass v. United States Dep't OF Agric., 737 F.2d 1408 (5th Cir. 1984)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pruett v. Marshall, 283 F.2d 436 (5th Cir. 1960)
- Herron v. Md. Cas. Co., 347 F.2d 357 (5th Cir. 1965)
- City OF Albertville v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 272 F.2d 594 (5th Cir. 1959)