Daisy Gilbert Fruge v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company

Fifth Circuit

Daisy Gilbert Fruge v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company

356 F.2d 949, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7019

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 1, 1966

Docket22410

StatusPublished

This text of 356 F.2d 949 (Daisy Gilbert Fruge v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity 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

Daisy Gilbert Fruge v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 356 F.2d 949, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7019 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this slip and fall personal injury case, a jury verdict was rendered in favor of appellee which finds ample support in the record. The trial court correctly rejected appellant’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.

*950 We have examined each of appellant’s contentions with regard to the admissibility of certain items of evidence, and are satisfied that no prejudicial error was committed. Appellant’s charge that she was prejudiced by the rulings and conduct of the trial judge is likewise without merit.

Appellant’s final contention is that the court erred in refusing her leave to amend her original complaint in order to claim medical expenses under a mandate from her husband. We need not consider this point, since the jury found for appellee on the question of liability. Appellant’s contention would affect only the question of quantum of damages.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this slip and fall personal injury case, a jury verdict was rendered in favor of appellee which finds ample support in the record. The trial court correctly rejected appellant’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.

*950 We have examined each of appellant’s contentions with regard to the admissibility of certain items of evidence, and are satisfied that no prejudicial error was committed. Appellant’s charge that she was prejudiced by the rulings and conduct of the trial judge is likewise without merit.

Appellant’s final contention is that the court erred in refusing her leave to amend her original complaint in order to claim medical expenses under a mandate from her husband. We need not consider this point, since the jury found for appellee on the question of liability. Appellant’s contention would affect only the question of quantum of damages.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 F.2d 949, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daisy-gilbert-fruge-v-hartford-accident-and-indemnity-company-ca5-1966.