Mary Robertson Marx v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company

Fifth Circuit

Mary Robertson Marx v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company

321 F.2d 70, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4405

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 8, 1963

Docket19857

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 321 F.2d 70 (Mary Robertson Marx 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

Mary Robertson Marx v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 321 F.2d 70, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4405 (5th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Mrs. Mary R. Marx, sued the insurer of Our Lady of the Lake Hospital in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for false imprisonment, embarrassment, assault, battery, and unlawful restraint. While a guest parliamentarian at a meeting of the Louisiana Nurses Association in a Baton Rouge hotel, Mrs. Marx suffered a stroke. The nurses rushed her to a hospital and summoned a physician to treat her. Mrs. Marx was confused and semi-conscious for at least five or six days. She remained at the hospital eleven days. The record shows that during her hospitalization her husband saw her frequently. He concurred in her continued hospitalization, and on at least one occasion told the attending physician to do whatever was necessary for the plaintiff. Doctors and nurses testified that during the entire time she was in the hospital her behaviour indicated that her mental processes were so impaired that she was unable to think rationally. She suffered delusions of persecution.

After deliberating fourteen minutes, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. This appeal is based solely on the ground that the evidence does not support the verdict: the short deliberate period of fourteen minutes is proof in itself, so appellant argues, that the jury did not properly consider the case and could not have arrived at a reasoned conclusion. There is no merit to the-appellant’s argument. We cannot hold an hour-glass over a jury. If the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, the length of time the jury deliberates is immaterial. Here the evidence amply supports the verdict. Some of us might not have required fourteen minutes to reach the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Mrs. Mary R. Marx, sued the insurer of Our Lady of the Lake Hospital in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for false imprisonment, embarrassment, assault, battery, and unlawful restraint. While a guest parliamentarian at a meeting of the Louisiana Nurses Association in a Baton Rouge hotel, Mrs. Marx suffered a stroke. The nurses rushed her to a hospital and summoned a physician to treat her. Mrs. Marx was confused and semi-conscious for at least five or six days. She remained at the hospital eleven days. The record shows that during her hospitalization her husband saw her frequently. He concurred in her continued hospitalization, and on at least one occasion told the attending physician to do whatever was necessary for the plaintiff. Doctors and nurses testified that during the entire time she was in the hospital her behaviour indicated that her mental processes were so impaired that she was unable to think rationally. She suffered delusions of persecution.

After deliberating fourteen minutes, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. This appeal is based solely on the ground that the evidence does not support the verdict: the short deliberate period of fourteen minutes is proof in itself, so appellant argues, that the jury did not properly consider the case and could not have arrived at a reasoned conclusion. There is no merit to the-appellant’s argument. We cannot hold an hour-glass over a jury. If the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, the length of time the jury deliberates is immaterial. Here the evidence amply supports the verdict. Some of us might not have required fourteen minutes to reach the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

321 F.2d 70, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mary-robertson-marx-v-hartford-accident-and-indemnity-company-ca5-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack