Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines v. Daisy McKenzie

D.C. Circuit

Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines v. Daisy McKenzie

237 F.2d 204, 99 U.S. App. D.C. 50, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 2877

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 19, 1956

Docket12897

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 237 F.2d 204 (Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines v. Daisy McKenzie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines v. Daisy McKenzie, 237 F.2d 204, 99 U.S. App. D.C. 50, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 2877 (D.C. Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee recovered a $35,000 judgment in her personal injury suit against appellant, whose counsel admitted liability in his opening statement to the jury. Reversal is sought o.n the ground that, since the pretrial order did not include .the issue whether the accident caused or .aggravated appellee’s, rare systemic disease of scleroderma, the trial court erred .in permitting appellee to raise it. The ■record clearly shows, however, that appellant's counsel was-aware that appellee .was afflicted with the disease; that he professed some knowledge of its medical .aspects; and that he did not ask for ■a continuance. In light of these circumstances, appellant may not claim prejudice by surprise. 1 Since there is no error affecting.substantiakri.ghts, the judgment is

Affirmed.

1

. Rabenovets v. Crossland, 1943, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 54, 137 F.2d 675.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellee recovered a $35,000 judgment in her personal injury suit against appellant, whose counsel admitted liability in his opening statement to the jury. Reversal is sought o.n the ground that, since the pretrial order did not include .the issue whether the accident caused or .aggravated appellee’s, rare systemic disease of scleroderma, the trial court erred .in permitting appellee to raise it. The ■record clearly shows, however, that appellant's counsel was-aware that appellee .was afflicted with the disease; that he professed some knowledge of its medical .aspects; and that he did not ask for ■a continuance. In light of these circumstances, appellant may not claim prejudice by surprise. 1 Since there is no error affecting.substantiakri.ghts, the judgment is

Affirmed.

1

. Rabenovets v. Crossland, 1943, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 54, 137 F.2d 675.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 F.2d 204, 99 U.S. App. D.C. 50, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 2877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennsylvania-greyhound-lines-v-daisy-mckenzie-cadc-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack