Allen E. Landry v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company

279 F.2d 214, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4236
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 17, 1960
Docket18225
StatusPublished

This text of 279 F.2d 214 (Allen E. Landry v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Allen E. Landry v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, 279 F.2d 214, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4236 (5th Cir. 1960).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After an automobile collision the appellant, Allen E. Landry, the driver of one of the cars, brought a suit under the Louisiana Direct Action Statute, LSA-R.S. 22:655, against the insurer of the driver of the other car seeking damages for personal injuries claimed to have resulted from the negligence of the insured. A jury verdict was returned for the defendant, and from the judgment entered on the verdict this appeal was taken. Two questions are presented.

The appellant contends that the district court erred in not charging the jury of its own motion that the insured of the appellee was guilty of negligence as a matter of law. To support this position we are directed to Lo Cicero v. Columbia Casualty Co., 5 Cir., 1959, 268 F.2d 440. In the cited case undisputed facts clearly established negligence as a matter of law. Here there were factual issues which could not properly be decided as matters of law.

The appellant complains that the court erred in refusing to permit his counsel to argue before the jury the law with respect to the doctrines of last clear chance and sudden emergency. It is the province of the court to decide questions of law and the province of the jury to determine the facts from the evidence in accordance with the law as given in the court’s instructions. 53 Am.Jur. 141, Trial § 156. Counsel’s arguments as to the law are to be addressed to the court; not to the jury.

No error being shown, the judgment is Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anthony Lo Cicero v. Columbia Casualty Company
268 F.2d 440 (Fifth Circuit, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
279 F.2d 214, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-e-landry-v-new-amsterdam-casualty-company-ca5-1960.