MRS. ETHEL OBEDIENCIA AND VINCENT OBEDIENCIA, APPELLANTS,

v.

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL., APPELLEES

PER CURIAM:

Appellants complain of inadequacy of a jury verdict for personal injuries arising out of a truck-automobile collision and of improper jury argument of Appellees’ counsel. The accident occurred when a truck operated by Defendant Appellee Ryder Truck System backed into the Obediencia vehicle, as a result of which Appellants’ car sustained damages in the amount of $44.90.

The jury awarded $1044.90 to Appellant Vincent Obediencia and $100.00 to Appellant Ethel Obediencia. Appellant Vincent Obediencia claimed to have sustained $1574.66 special medical damages, *13.25;0.0 of wP\ch ™as incurred for ex-and treatments by a Dr. Salatlch^ M^„?bedlf C1*. was jammed ^ a Dr- (PhllllPs’ 7h° diagnosed her mas “sPrain of7™*’- The nature; faster and extent of the mjuríes 0f Appellants, as well as the reason-flefss and necessity of their medical treatment and ^penses, are jury questions. The medical testimony presented by both sides is extensive and, viewing this record as a whole, the awards to the respective plaintiffs are not such as to g^oc^ the judicial conscience and raise an irresistible inference that passion, prejudice, or other improper cause invaded the trial Morgan v. Labiak, 368 p 2d 338 (10 Cir. 1966); B.

F. Goodrich Tire Co Lyster) 328 F. 2d 411, 418 (5 Cir. 1964). This point is without merit,

The record shows that 19-year old Ethel Obediencia was living with 58-year old Vincent Obediencia in what they believed to be a common law mar-r^age *-n°t recognized in Louisiana). The trial ^dge had ruled that evidence as ^is situation would be admitted and there was no objection to such rul- , ., . , , m, mg, and it is not questioned here. The argUmen^ complained of pointed out that Appellants were coming into U.

S. District Court asking for something guaranteed to them by their constitutional rights, that is, a trial by jury, at a time when the two of them were living together, and had lived together, while both were married to other parties. No objection was made to this argument and ™ view of the admission of the evidenee it is not so inflammatory that it could not have been cured by a proper instruction by the trial judge. This Point also is without merit and accord-ingly the judgment of the trial court is

Affirmed.