Dixie Greyhound Lines., Inc. v. Woodall

Sixth Circuit

Dixie Greyhound Lines., Inc. v. Woodall

188 F.2d 535, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3068

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 13, 1951

Docket11246

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 188 F.2d 535 (Dixie Greyhound Lines., Inc. v. Woodall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dixie Greyhound Lines., Inc. v. Woodall, 188 F.2d 535, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3068 (6th Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was heard on the record, briefs, and argument of counsel for the respective parties;

And the Court being of the opinion that the Trial Judge correctly charged the jury with respect to the assessment of damages in the event its verdict was in favor of the appellee; and that in determining the pecuniary value of the life of the deceased it was only necessary for the appellee to show by his evidence such facts and data as would furnish a basis from which the jury might approximate the proper amount of damages with reasonable certainty, which burden was met by the appellee, Davidson Benedict Co. v. Severson, 109 Tenn. 572, 72 S.W. 967; Walkup v. Covington, 18 Tenn.App. 117, 73 S.W.2d 718;

And being further of the opinion that the verdict in the sum of $20,000 was not excessive as a matter of law, taking into consideration the deceased’s age of six years, his normal health, and life expectancy of 58.92 years, the present value of the dollar, and verdicts in similar causes heretofore approved by rulings of the Tennessee Courts, Potts v. Leigh, 15 Tenn.App. 1; Walkup v. Covington, supra;

And there appearing no abuse of discretion on the part of the Trial Judge in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive; *536 Detroit Taxicab & Transfer Co., v. Pratt, 6 Cir., 2 F.2d 193; Spero-Nelson v. Brown, 6 Cir., 175 F.2d 86, 89; Scott v. Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co., 3 Cir., 151 F.2d 61, 64-65;

And the record failing to show the closing argument of appellee’s counsel, to which no objection was taken at the time, and the Court being of the opinion from the evidence shown by the record that said verdict was not the result of passion or prejudice;

It Is Ordered that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was heard on the record, briefs, and argument of counsel for the respective parties;

And the Court being of the opinion that the Trial Judge correctly charged the jury with respect to the assessment of damages in the event its verdict was in favor of the appellee; and that in determining the pecuniary value of the life of the deceased it was only necessary for the appellee to show by his evidence such facts and data as would furnish a basis from which the jury might approximate the proper amount of damages with reasonable certainty, which burden was met by the appellee, Davidson Benedict Co. v. Severson, 109 Tenn. 572, 72 S.W. 967; Walkup v. Covington, 18 Tenn.App. 117, 73 S.W.2d 718;

And being further of the opinion that the verdict in the sum of $20,000 was not excessive as a matter of law, taking into consideration the deceased’s age of six years, his normal health, and life expectancy of 58.92 years, the present value of the dollar, and verdicts in similar causes heretofore approved by rulings of the Tennessee Courts, Potts v. Leigh, 15 Tenn.App. 1; Walkup v. Covington, supra;

And there appearing no abuse of discretion on the part of the Trial Judge in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive; *536 Detroit Taxicab & Transfer Co., v. Pratt, 6 Cir., 2 F.2d 193; Spero-Nelson v. Brown, 6 Cir., 175 F.2d 86, 89; Scott v. Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co., 3 Cir., 151 F.2d 61, 64-65;

And the record failing to show the closing argument of appellee’s counsel, to which no objection was taken at the time, and the Court being of the opinion from the evidence shown by the record that said verdict was not the result of passion or prejudice;

It Is Ordered that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 F.2d 535, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixie-greyhound-lines-inc-v-woodall-ca6-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack