182 F.2d 703 (D.C. Cir. 1950), 10427, Frasca v. Howell
|Docket Nº:||10427, 10428.|
|Citation:||182 F.2d 703|
|Party Name:||FRASCA v. HOWELL et al. WOLTZ v. HOWELL et al.|
|Case Date:||May 29, 1950|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|
Argued March 8, 1950.
Mr. Michael J. Keane, Jr., Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Karl Michelet, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. Albert E. Brault, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Denver H. Graham, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellees Spencer Howell and Robert O. Powell.
Messrs. Thomas S. Jackson and Irving B. Yockelson, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for appellee Charles Youts. Mr. Louis M. Denit, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellee Youts.
Before EDGERTON, PROCTOR and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.
These appeals arise out of negligence actions for personal injuries sustained by appellants (plaintiffs) in an automobile collision. The cases were tried together before court and jury. A separate verdict was returned for each plaintiff in amounts substantially above her proven special damages. Nevertheless, plaintiffs moved for a new trial upon the ground that the verdicts were inadequate. Their appeals are based upon the court's action in overruling the motions and in denying certain requested jury instructions.
A motion for new trial is committed to the trial court's discretion. The record here reveals no abuse of that discretion in denying the motions in question; therefore, the court's disposition of them must stand. Although we may think the amounts awarded are small, they cannot be disturbed for that reason alone. It would be an unwarranted encroachment upon the province of the jury, as well as of the trial court. Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co., 1933, 287 U.S. 474, 53 S.Ct. 252, 77 L.Ed. 439;
Dean v. Century Motors, Inc., 1946, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 9, 154 F.2d 201; Ramsey v. Ross, 1936, 66 App.D.C. 186, 85 F.2d 685; Washington Railway & Electric Company v. Upperman, 1918, 47 App.D.C. 219. See, generally, Miller v. Maryland Casualty Co., 2 Cir., 1930, 40 F.2d 463.
Appellant Woltz also complains of the court's refusal of requested...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP