Stephen C. Sokol v. Stanley J. Gussack, Edwin Swan, Individually and D/B/A Swan's Service

Third Circuit

Stephen C. Sokol v. Stanley J. Gussack, Edwin Swan, Individually and D/B/A Swan's Service

367 F.2d 576, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4712

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedOctober 13, 1966

Docket15760_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 367 F.2d 576 (Stephen C. Sokol v. Stanley J. Gussack, Edwin Swan, Individually and D/B/A Swan's Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stephen C. Sokol v. Stanley J. Gussack, Edwin Swan, Individually and D/B/A Swan's Service, 367 F.2d 576, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4712 (3d Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff in an action for personal injury. Reversal of the judgment is urged on two grounds.

The first specification of error relates to the denial of the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict made at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence. An examination of the original record reveals that the motion was not renewed at the close of all the evidence and the issues were submitted to the jury on instructions to which there were no objections. It is well settled that the failure of a defendant to move for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence constitutes a waiver of any error there might have been in the denial of a similar motion made at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence. Gebhardt v. Wilson Freight Forwarding Company, 348 F.2d 129, 132 (3 Cir., 1965) and cases therein cited. The waiver precludes consideration of the alleged error on appeal. Ibid.

The second specification of error relates to the denial of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Such a motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its denial is ordinarily not reviewable in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company, 350 F.2d 479, 482 (3 Cir., 1965), cert. den. 382 U.S. 987, 86 S.Ct. 549, 15 L.Ed.2d 475. There is no such showing in the instant case.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff in an action for personal injury. Reversal of the judgment is urged on two grounds.

The first specification of error relates to the denial of the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict made at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence. An examination of the original record reveals that the motion was not renewed at the close of all the evidence and the issues were submitted to the jury on instructions to which there were no objections. It is well settled that the failure of a defendant to move for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence constitutes a waiver of any error there might have been in the denial of a similar motion made at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence. Gebhardt v. Wilson Freight Forwarding Company, 348 F.2d 129, 132 (3 Cir., 1965) and cases therein cited. The waiver precludes consideration of the alleged error on appeal. Ibid.

The second specification of error relates to the denial of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Such a motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its denial is ordinarily not reviewable in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company, 350 F.2d 479, 482 (3 Cir., 1965), cert. den. 382 U.S. 987, 86 S.Ct. 549, 15 L.Ed.2d 475. There is no such showing in the instant case.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

367 F.2d 576, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephen-c-sokol-v-stanley-j-gussack-edwin-swan-individually-and-dba-ca3-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack