Leroy J. Leblanc v. Glaser Construction Company, Inc. And Bay Contractors, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

Leroy J. Leblanc v. Glaser Construction Company, Inc. And Bay Contractors, Inc.

311 F.2d 3, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3348, 1963 A.M.C. 2687

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 11, 1962

Docket19809_1

StatusPublished

This text of 311 F.2d 3 (Leroy J. Leblanc v. Glaser Construction Company, Inc. And Bay Contractors, 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

Leroy J. Leblanc v. Glaser Construction Company, Inc. And Bay Contractors, Inc., 311 F.2d 3, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3348, 1963 A.M.C. 2687 (5th Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

JOSEPH C. HUTCHESON, Jr., Circuit Judge.

This appeal from a judgment in a suit for damages presents, as its principal complaint of error the instruction of the district court that plaintiff could not recover for loss of wages because he was not claiming any such loss, whereas the complaint specifically alleged as one of his items of damage “the loss of earnings, $130,000.00.”

Apparently in so instructing the jury, the judge confused the action for damages which plaintiff had submitted to the jury with his action for maintenance and cure. Whatever was the cause, however, of the confusion, the instruction was erroneous.

The appellees, complaining that the plaintiff failed to properly bring up and present his appeal because of his failure to bring the whole record up and that he failed to serve them with notice of designation of the contents of the record on appeal, urge upon us that the appeal should be dismissed because of the incomplete state of the record. Contending in addition that plaintiff has suffered no injury because a verdict should have been directed in defendants’ favor, appellees argue that plaintiff had a fair trial which resulted in a verdict in his favor to which he was not entitled and that he is not entitled to have the case retried.

In view of the plain error of the instruction appellant complains of, it is clear that the plaintiff has had no real trial of his cause and that the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for trial anew.

Reversed and remanded.

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

JOSEPH C. HUTCHESON, Jr., Circuit Judge.

This appeal from a judgment in a suit for damages presents, as its principal complaint of error the instruction of the district court that plaintiff could not recover for loss of wages because he was not claiming any such loss, whereas the complaint specifically alleged as one of his items of damage “the loss of earnings, $130,000.00.”

Apparently in so instructing the jury, the judge confused the action for damages which plaintiff had submitted to the jury with his action for maintenance and cure. Whatever was the cause, however, of the confusion, the instruction was erroneous.

The appellees, complaining that the plaintiff failed to properly bring up and present his appeal because of his failure to bring the whole record up and that he failed to serve them with notice of designation of the contents of the record on appeal, urge upon us that the appeal should be dismissed because of the incomplete state of the record. Contending in addition that plaintiff has suffered no injury because a verdict should have been directed in defendants’ favor, appellees argue that plaintiff had a fair trial which resulted in a verdict in his favor to which he was not entitled and that he is not entitled to have the case retried.

In view of the plain error of the instruction appellant complains of, it is clear that the plaintiff has had no real trial of his cause and that the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for trial anew.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

311 F.2d 3, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3348, 1963 A.M.C. 2687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leroy-j-leblanc-v-glaser-construction-company-inc-and-bay-contractors-ca5-1962.