The Travelers Insurance Company v. Garfield Hurst

Fifth Circuit

The Travelers Insurance Company v. Garfield Hurst

343 F.2d 160, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6057

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 1, 1965

Docket21740

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 343 F.2d 160 (The Travelers Insurance Company v. Garfield Hurst) 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

The Travelers Insurance Company v. Garfield Hurst, 343 F.2d 160, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6057 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this diversity action instituted under the Louisiana Direct Action Statute, the plaintiff-appellee recovered damages for the death of his son, who received fatal injuries when the car in which he was riding collided with a tractor-trailer owned by Cudahy Packing Co., Inc., Appellant (Cudahy’s insurance carrier) contends that there was insufficient evidence that Cudahy’s negligence was a proximate cause of the collision to submit the case to the jury under Louisiana law. It asserts that the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the driver of the car in which the decedent was riding. We conclude that the evidence on the question of proximate cause was sufficient to warrant jury consideration.

In addition, the appellant complains of the failure of the trial court to *161 instruct the jury to discount to its present value any lump sum awarded for loss of future support. We note that no instruction was requested on this point and that no objection was made upon failure to give such an instruction. On oral argument, counsel for the appellant stated, in effect, that he made a tactical decision not to object after the jury had been retired because of his fear of overemphasizing the quantum of damages. In the circumstances of this case and in light of the nature and amount of the damages which were awarded, we do not feel that the absence of such a charge constitutes plain error. '

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this diversity action instituted under the Louisiana Direct Action Statute, the plaintiff-appellee recovered damages for the death of his son, who received fatal injuries when the car in which he was riding collided with a tractor-trailer owned by Cudahy Packing Co., Inc., Appellant (Cudahy’s insurance carrier) contends that there was insufficient evidence that Cudahy’s negligence was a proximate cause of the collision to submit the case to the jury under Louisiana law. It asserts that the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the driver of the car in which the decedent was riding. We conclude that the evidence on the question of proximate cause was sufficient to warrant jury consideration.

In addition, the appellant complains of the failure of the trial court to *161 instruct the jury to discount to its present value any lump sum awarded for loss of future support. We note that no instruction was requested on this point and that no objection was made upon failure to give such an instruction. On oral argument, counsel for the appellant stated, in effect, that he made a tactical decision not to object after the jury had been retired because of his fear of overemphasizing the quantum of damages. In the circumstances of this case and in light of the nature and amount of the damages which were awarded, we do not feel that the absence of such a charge constitutes plain error. '

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 F.2d 160, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-travelers-insurance-company-v-garfield-hurst-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack