Bernad Geffen v. Henry Winer and Louis Winer, Appelless

D.C. Circuit

Bernad Geffen v. Henry Winer and Louis Winer, Appelless

244 F.2d 375, 100 U.S. App. D.C. 286, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3097

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 2, 1957

Docket13561

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 244 F.2d 375 (Bernad Geffen v. Henry Winer and Louis Winer, Appelless) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bernad Geffen v. Henry Winer and Louis Winer, Appelless, 244 F.2d 375, 100 U.S. App. D.C. 286, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3097 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

FAHY, Circuit Judge.

In the District Court appellant was awarded a jury verdict against appellees for injuries growing out of the collision between a motorcycle he was-riding and a truck which was owned by one of the appellees and operated by the other. Although the evidence was sufficient to support such an instruction the court denied appellant’s request for an instruction that should the jury find in his favor they should take into consideration, in determining the amount of damages, the reasonable value of the time he had lost from his employment.

Within the principles laid down by this Court in Hudson v. Lazarus, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 217 F.2d 344, 1 the denial of the requested instruction was error which requires reversal, notwithstanding appellant was paid the amount, of his salary for the period he was unable to work. 2

We have power in an appropriate case to remand only for redetermination of the amount of damages, excluding from the scope of a new trial the question of liability, see Washington Gas Light Co. v. Connolly, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 156, 214 F.2d 254, and cases there cited. But our power in this regard is-to be exercised with caution and not when the error which necessitates a new trial is in respect of a matter which might well have affected the jury’s determination of other issues. Cf. Thompson v. Camp, 6 Cir., 167 F.2d 733. Here it appears from the record as a whole that the interests of justice will be best served by a new trial on all issues. For this reason the judgment is

Reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

1

. See, also, Siebrand v. Gossnell, 9 Cir., 234 F.2d 81, 95; Shea v. Rettie, 287 Mass. 454, 192 N.E. 44, 95 A.L.R. 571; Motts v. Michigan Cab Co., 274 Mich. 437, 264 N.W. 855; Cooney v. Hughes, 310 Ill.App. 371, 34 N.E.2d 566.

2

. Appellant as a member of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, which continued his salary something more than 20 weeks until he returned to duty.

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

FAHY, Circuit Judge.

In the District Court appellant was awarded a jury verdict against appellees for injuries growing out of the collision between a motorcycle he was-riding and a truck which was owned by one of the appellees and operated by the other. Although the evidence was sufficient to support such an instruction the court denied appellant’s request for an instruction that should the jury find in his favor they should take into consideration, in determining the amount of damages, the reasonable value of the time he had lost from his employment.

Within the principles laid down by this Court in Hudson v. Lazarus, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 217 F.2d 344, 1 the denial of the requested instruction was error which requires reversal, notwithstanding appellant was paid the amount, of his salary for the period he was unable to work. 2

We have power in an appropriate case to remand only for redetermination of the amount of damages, excluding from the scope of a new trial the question of liability, see Washington Gas Light Co. v. Connolly, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 156, 214 F.2d 254, and cases there cited. But our power in this regard is-to be exercised with caution and not when the error which necessitates a new trial is in respect of a matter which might well have affected the jury’s determination of other issues. Cf. Thompson v. Camp, 6 Cir., 167 F.2d 733. Here it appears from the record as a whole that the interests of justice will be best served by a new trial on all issues. For this reason the judgment is

Reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

1

. See, also, Siebrand v. Gossnell, 9 Cir., 234 F.2d 81, 95; Shea v. Rettie, 287 Mass. 454, 192 N.E. 44, 95 A.L.R. 571; Motts v. Michigan Cab Co., 274 Mich. 437, 264 N.W. 855; Cooney v. Hughes, 310 Ill.App. 371, 34 N.E.2d 566.

2

. Appellant as a member of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, which continued his salary something more than 20 weeks until he returned to duty.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 F.2d 375, 100 U.S. App. D.C. 286, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernad-geffen-v-henry-winer-and-louis-winer-appelless-cadc-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack