Phoenix Railway Co. v. Landis
This text of 112 P. 844 (Phoenix Railway Co. v. Landis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In our former opinion in this case we affirmed the judgment of the lower court, hut subsequently granted a rehearing, in order that we might further consider whether the lower court committed error in giving an instruction upon the measure of damages which charged the jury that in determining the measure of damages they should take into consideration the habits of deceased, but failed to specify particularly what habits they were authorized to so consider.
If appellant desired that the court instruct with greater particularity as to what habits should be considered it should have presented to the court and requested the giving of instructions fully covering the subject in accordance with its view of the law. Having failed so to do, it is not now entitled to complain of the omission. This, we think, is the generally accepted view. Backus v. Fort Street Union Depot, 169 U. S. 557, 18 Sup. Ct. 445, 42 L. Ed. 853; Kansas City etc. Ry. Co. v. Henrie, 87 Ark. 443, 112 S. W. 967; Galveston Oil Co. v. Malin, 60 Tex. 645; Sharon v. Winnebago Furniture Mfg. Co., 141 Wis. 185, 124 N. W. 299; Warren etc. R. Co. v. Waldrop [280]*280(Ark.), 123 S. W. 792; Greenway v. Taylor Co., 144 Iowa, 332, 122 N. W. 943.
No prejudicial error appearing, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
The CHIEF JUSTICE, being disqualified, took no part in the determination of this cause.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
112 P. 844, 13 Ariz. 279, 1911 Ariz. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phoenix-railway-co-v-landis-ariz-1911.