Marcella A. Haugh v. J. R. Curlee

Fifth Circuit

Marcella A. Haugh v. J. R. Curlee

265 F.2d 130, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4163

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 25, 1959

Docket17519_1

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 265 F.2d 130 (Marcella A. Haugh v. J. R. Curlee) 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

Marcella A. Haugh v. J. R. Curlee, 265 F.2d 130, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4163 (5th Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, plaintiff below, sued to recover for personal injuries received in an automobile collision. The jury returned a verdict for defendant. Two questions are sought to be presented to this Court. (1) Under the facts and circumstances of this case, does the law of Florida require a charge to the jury on the “last clear chance” doctrine? (2) Did the district court abuse its discretion in not granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence ?

The “last clear chance” doctrine was contained in appellant’s requested jury instructions Nos. 6 and 10 which were refused. Even after the trial judge specifically gave an opportunity to object to the jury instructions, counsel failed to do so before the jury retired. We find no plain error resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, appellant has not reserved for appellate review the failure to give an instruction on the last clear chance doctrine. Rule 51, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

The newly discovered evidence in all probability would not produce a different result and there is no adequate showing that this evidence could not by due diligence have been produced at the trial. “Clearly, there was no reviewable abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the motion for new trial upon this ground.” Phillips v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 5 Cir., 1956, 239 F.2d 79, 82.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, plaintiff below, sued to recover for personal injuries received in an automobile collision. The jury returned a verdict for defendant. Two questions are sought to be presented to this Court. (1) Under the facts and circumstances of this case, does the law of Florida require a charge to the jury on the “last clear chance” doctrine? (2) Did the district court abuse its discretion in not granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence ?

The “last clear chance” doctrine was contained in appellant’s requested jury instructions Nos. 6 and 10 which were refused. Even after the trial judge specifically gave an opportunity to object to the jury instructions, counsel failed to do so before the jury retired. We find no plain error resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, appellant has not reserved for appellate review the failure to give an instruction on the last clear chance doctrine. Rule 51, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

The newly discovered evidence in all probability would not produce a different result and there is no adequate showing that this evidence could not by due diligence have been produced at the trial. “Clearly, there was no reviewable abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the motion for new trial upon this ground.” Phillips v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 5 Cir., 1956, 239 F.2d 79, 82.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 F.2d 130, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcella-a-haugh-v-j-r-curlee-ca5-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack