Edward Joseph Vicknair v. Archie Towing Company, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

Edward Joseph Vicknair v. Archie Towing Company, Inc.

479 F.2d 59, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 9615

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 4, 1973

Docket72-3241

StatusPublished

This text of 479 F.2d 59 (Edward Joseph Vicknair v. Archie Towing Company, Inc.) 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

Edward Joseph Vicknair v. Archie Towing Company, Inc., 479 F.2d 59, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 9615 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that if errors occurred in the reception of evidence or in the wording of the special interrogatories they were in no way prejudicial to the defendant. The only remaining issue is the argument that the jury’s verdict of $65,000 for the permanent partial impairment of the plaintiff’s ankle was so excessive as to bring it within the power of this court to reverse the denial of the motion in the trial court to order a re-mittitur of a part of the verdict or grant a new trial. In our position of over-viewing the jury’s verdict for injury which caused loss of wages, future loss of wages, past pain and suffering, future pain and suffering and loss of function of ten to fifteen percent of one leg in the case of a twenty-seven year old worker with a substantial earning capacity we conclude that this court does not have the power to disturb the verdict. See Neese, Administrator, v. Southern Railway Company, 350 U.S. 77, 76 S.Ct. 131, 100 L.Ed. 60, in which the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 216 F.2d 772, when that court had directed a remit-itur in an appeal from a verdict claimed not to have been mathematically sustainable. See also Grunenthal v. Long Island Railroad Company, 393 U.S. 156, 89 S. Ct. 331, 21 L.Ed.2d 309.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that if errors occurred in the reception of evidence or in the wording of the special interrogatories they were in no way prejudicial to the defendant. The only remaining issue is the argument that the jury’s verdict of $65,000 for the permanent partial impairment of the plaintiff’s ankle was so excessive as to bring it within the power of this court to reverse the denial of the motion in the trial court to order a re-mittitur of a part of the verdict or grant a new trial. In our position of over-viewing the jury’s verdict for injury which caused loss of wages, future loss of wages, past pain and suffering, future pain and suffering and loss of function of ten to fifteen percent of one leg in the case of a twenty-seven year old worker with a substantial earning capacity we conclude that this court does not have the power to disturb the verdict. See Neese, Administrator, v. Southern Railway Company, 350 U.S. 77, 76 S.Ct. 131, 100 L.Ed. 60, in which the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 216 F.2d 772, when that court had directed a remit-itur in an appeal from a verdict claimed not to have been mathematically sustainable. See also Grunenthal v. Long Island Railroad Company, 393 U.S. 156, 89 S. Ct. 331, 21 L.Ed.2d 309.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 F.2d 59, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 9615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-joseph-vicknair-v-archie-towing-company-inc-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack