Mrs. Della Mae Keeton Woods v. Erle L. Lowery

Fifth Circuit

Mrs. Della Mae Keeton Woods v. Erle L. Lowery

297 F.2d 827

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 14, 1962

Docket19107

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 297 F.2d 827 (Mrs. Della Mae Keeton Woods v. Erle L. Lowery) 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

Mrs. Della Mae Keeton Woods v. Erle L. Lowery, 297 F.2d 827 (5th Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal presents principally questions of fact. We find that there was ample evidence for submission of the case to the jury and that the jury’s verdict was amply supported by the evidence.

Appellant strongly urges that during a discussion between the foreman of the jury and the trial court, when the jury sought additional instructions, a statement by the foreman indicating that the jury at that time may have thought that the appellee was guilty of at least some negligence, became in effect a special verdict which could not be overturned by the jury’s later formal verdict for the defendant. We conclude that there is no merit in this contention. The jury’s verdict for the defendant may well have been based on its finding that the defendant was partially negligent, but that his negligence was not a contributing cause to the injury complained of. There is nothing inconsistent in a finding of the jury that the defendant was negligent and its subsequent finding of a general verdict for the defendant. Moreover, we do not believe that the informal discussion between court and jury before the verdict is made can be transmuted into any sort of verdict.

We have carefully considered appellant’s complaints touching on the refusal of the trial court of certain of appellant’s requested instructions to the jury. We find no error in the court’s action in this regard. The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal presents principally questions of fact. We find that there was ample evidence for submission of the case to the jury and that the jury’s verdict was amply supported by the evidence.

Appellant strongly urges that during a discussion between the foreman of the jury and the trial court, when the jury sought additional instructions, a statement by the foreman indicating that the jury at that time may have thought that the appellee was guilty of at least some negligence, became in effect a special verdict which could not be overturned by the jury’s later formal verdict for the defendant. We conclude that there is no merit in this contention. The jury’s verdict for the defendant may well have been based on its finding that the defendant was partially negligent, but that his negligence was not a contributing cause to the injury complained of. There is nothing inconsistent in a finding of the jury that the defendant was negligent and its subsequent finding of a general verdict for the defendant. Moreover, we do not believe that the informal discussion between court and jury before the verdict is made can be transmuted into any sort of verdict.

We have carefully considered appellant’s complaints touching on the refusal of the trial court of certain of appellant’s requested instructions to the jury. We find no error in the court’s action in this regard. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 F.2d 827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mrs-della-mae-keeton-woods-v-erle-l-lowery-ca5-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack