Detroit Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Pratt
| Decision Date | 14 November 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 4036.,4036. |
| Citation | 2 F.2d 193 |
| Parties | DETROIT TAXICAB & TRANSFER CO. v. PRATT. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Wm. E. Tarsney, of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff in error.
Harry C. Milligan, of Detroit, Mich., for defendant in error.
Before DENISON, DONAHUE, and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges.
The defendant in error, William Pratt, as guardian of Ernest Pratt, a minor, brought action to recover damages from the Detroit Taxicab & Transfer Company, for personal injuries sustained by Ernest Pratt on the 20th day of February, 1918. alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the Taxicab Company in the operation of one of its vehicles in the city of Detroit, Mich. At the time Ernest Pratt sustained the injuries complained of, he was six years of age. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $35,000. A motion for new trial was overruled, and judgment entered on the verdict.
No exceptions were taken to the admission of evidence or the charge of the court, nor is it now claimed that the evidence offered by the plaintiff does not sustain the averments of negligence.
It is insisted, however, that the court erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error to reduce the verdict or grant a new trial, for the reason, first, that there was no testimony supporting such verdict, in so far as it includes loss of earning power, and that in this respect the court erred in its charge to the jury that it might, as an element of damages, return a sum of money to compensate plaintiff for loss of earnings; second, that the verdict is excessive.
This court will not consider alleged errors in the charge to which no exceptions have been taken. Pennsylvania Ry. Co. v. Minds, 250 U. S. 368, 375, 39 S. Ct. 531, 63 L. Ed. 1039, and cases there cited.
This court has no authority to weigh the evidence, and for that reason it is not within its province to determine whether or not the verdict is excessive. That is a question for the trial court upon motion for a new trial, the granting or refusal of which is not assignable as error, unless it appears that the trial court, in overruling such a motion, was guilty of an abuse of discretion. Etna Ins. Co. v. Ward, 140 U. S. 76, 11 S. Ct. 720, 35 L. Ed. 371; New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Winter, 143 U. S. 60, 75, 12 S. Ct. 356, 36 L. Ed. 71; C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Proffitt, 218 F. 23, 28, 134 C. C. A. 37.
It is clear from the record in this case that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling this motion for a new trial, or in refusing to reduce the verdict.
Evidence was offered on the part of the plaintiff tending to prove that the injuries to this boy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sunray Oil Corporation v. Allbritton
...whether or not the trial court abused its discretion in not setting the verdict aside as manifestly excessive. Detroit Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Pratt, 6 Cir., 2 F.2d 193; Carter Coal Co. v. Nelson, 4 Cir., 91 F.2d 651, 654; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Dismang, 10 Cir., 106 F.2d 362, 364; Sou......
-
Morris v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
...789; Waters v. Atlantic Ref. Co., 9 Pa. Dist. Rep. 473; Deep Min. & Drainage Co. v. Fitzgerald, 21 Colo. 533, 43 P. 210; Detroit Taxi & Transfer Co. v. Pratt, 2 F.2d 193; v. Interstate Iron & Steel Co., 207 Ill.App. 7; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. True, 71 Okla. 264, 176 P. 758; Barclay v.......
-
Doremus v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
...v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 93 W.Va. 426, 117 S.E. 148; Weaver v. Wheeling Traction Co., 91 W.Va. 528, 114 S.E. 131; Detroit Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Pratt, (C.A. 6) 2 F.2d 193. In the last cited case, with respect to impairment of the future earning capacity of a permanently injured minor, t......
-
Houston Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Kelley
...whether the district court abused its discretion in granting or refusing a new trial on the grounds of excessiveness. Detroit Taxicab Co. v. Pratt, 6 Cir., 2 F.2d 193. It will not reverse the action of the district court in granting or denying a motion for a new trial for claimed error of f......