Wilfred Kolman and Ruth Kolman, His Wife v. Millicent Jacoby and Kenneth Jacoby

Third Circuit

Wilfred Kolman and Ruth Kolman, His Wife v. Millicent Jacoby and Kenneth Jacoby

419 F.2d 395

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedDecember 29, 1969

Docket18049_1

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 419 F.2d 395 (Wilfred Kolman and Ruth Kolman, His Wife v. Millicent Jacoby and Kenneth Jacoby) 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

Wilfred Kolman and Ruth Kolman, His Wife v. Millicent Jacoby and Kenneth Jacoby, 419 F.2d 395 (3d Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

In this diversity action for personal injuries arising out of an automobile collision, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff-appellants make numerous assignments of error in the trial below. We have considered them all. And we conclude they are without merit.

Appellants raise several complaints about the charge to the jury. A reading of the charge as a whole shows it to reflect accurately the legal standards governing this ease. Ridgway National Bank v. North American Van Lines, Inc., 326 F.2d 934 (3 Cir. 1964); Gerhart v. Henry Disston and Sons, Inc., 290 F.2d 778 (3 Cir. 1961). Moreover, no objection was made to one of these points relating to the burden of proof in damages as required under Fed.R.Civ. Proc. 51. Consequently, it cannot be considered on appeal absent our finding fundamental error. Frankel v. Burke’s Excavating, Inc., 397 F.2d 167 (3 Cir. 1968). We find no such error.

Similarly, we are not persuaded by appellants’ assertions that the trial judge’s conduct and comments prejudiced the plaintiffs before the jury. The degree of court participation in the trial of a cause is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Bissonette v. National Biscuit Co., 100 F.2d 1003 (2 Cir. 1939). We find no abuse here.

The judgment 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.

In this diversity action for personal injuries arising out of an automobile collision, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff-appellants make numerous assignments of error in the trial below. We have considered them all. And we conclude they are without merit.

Appellants raise several complaints about the charge to the jury. A reading of the charge as a whole shows it to reflect accurately the legal standards governing this ease. Ridgway National Bank v. North American Van Lines, Inc., 326 F.2d 934 (3 Cir. 1964); Gerhart v. Henry Disston and Sons, Inc., 290 F.2d 778 (3 Cir. 1961). Moreover, no objection was made to one of these points relating to the burden of proof in damages as required under Fed.R.Civ. Proc. 51. Consequently, it cannot be considered on appeal absent our finding fundamental error. Frankel v. Burke’s Excavating, Inc., 397 F.2d 167 (3 Cir. 1968). We find no such error.

Similarly, we are not persuaded by appellants’ assertions that the trial judge’s conduct and comments prejudiced the plaintiffs before the jury. The degree of court participation in the trial of a cause is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Bissonette v. National Biscuit Co., 100 F.2d 1003 (2 Cir. 1939). We find no abuse here.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

419 F.2d 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilfred-kolman-and-ruth-kolman-his-wife-v-millicent-jacoby-and-kenneth-ca3-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack