WILFRED KOLMAN AND RUTH KOLMAN, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
MILLICENT JACOBY AND KENNETH JACOBY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the jury charge and the trial judge's conduct were not erroneous and did not prejudice the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs appealed a jury verdict for the defendant in a personal injury action arising from an automobile collision. Appellants raised numerous assi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fundamental Error cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co. v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 427 F.2d 1273 (3d Cir. 1970)
-
Wounick v. Hysmith, 423 F.2d 873 (3d Cir. 1970)
-
Morley v. Stephen Branca v. Dennis R. Morley, 456 F.2d 1252 (3d Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- Gerhart v. Henry Disston & Sons, Inc., 290 F.2d 778 (3d Cir. 1961)
- Ridgway Nat'l Bank v. N. Am. van Lines, Inc., 326 F.2d 934 (3d Cir. 1964)
- Frankel v. Burke's Excavating, Inc., 397 F.2d 167 (3d Cir. 1968)
- Bissonette v. Nat'l Biscuit Co., 100 F.2d 1003 (2d Cir. 1939)