Cohen v. Evening Star Newspaper Co.
| Decision Date | 17 June 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 7406.,7406. |
| Citation | 72 App. DC 258,113 F.2d 523 |
| Parties | COHEN v. EVENING STAR NEWSPAPER CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Morris Simon, Lawrence Koenigsberger, Eugene Young, and Leroy S. Bendheim, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Edmund L. Jones and George Monk, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, MILLER, and VINSON, Associate Justices.
On May 28, 1936, appellant's twelve year old son was injured by a truck owned and operated by appellee. The accident occurred immediately after the child had alighted from a bus and while he was attempting to cross the street at or near the intersection of Seventh and Girard Streets, Northeast, in the City of Washington. Appellant, as next friend of the child, brought this action in the court below to recover damages for the injuries sustained. Following a trial, the jury found a verdict in appellee's favor; and this appeal is from the judgment based thereon. All the points which are relied upon by appellant on this appeal challenge the refusal of the trial court to give five prayers for instructions offered by appellant. In our view the court committed no error in refusing these prayers.
A party has no vested interest in any particular form of instruction.1 This is true, even though the proffered prayer may be unobjectionable in itself, standing alone, as a statement of law.2 What the language of the instructions shall be is for the trial judge to determine.3 If, on examination of the entire charge, it appears that the jury has been fairly and adequately instructed, the requirements of the law are satisfied.4
A careful examination of the whole charge reveals that the instructions given covered all points material to appellant's case which were contained in the instructions requested.5 It is significant in this respect that appellant offered no objections to the court's charge as it was given to the jury; either on the ground that the whole charge was inadequate, or that particular instructions were incorrect.6
Affirmed.
1 Ayers v. Watson, 137 U.S. 584, 601, 11 S.Ct. 201, 34 L.Ed. 803. See Gassenheimer v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 432, 446; Shettel v. United States, ___ App. D.C. ___, 113 F.2d 34, decided June 10, 1940.
2 Redman v. Smith, 51 App.D.C. 131, 277 F. 533; Utah Power & Light Co. v. Woody, 10 Cir., 62 F.2d 613.
3 Ayers v. Watson, 137 U.S. 584, 601, 11 S.Ct. 201, 34 L.Ed. 803; Washington Times Co. v. Murray, 55 App.D.C. 32, 34, 299 F. 903, 906.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. United States
...child should not be permitted in any event. 35 Thompson v. United States, 59 App. D.C. 51, 32 F.2d 947. See Cohen v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 72 App.D.C. 258, 113 F.2d 523. 36 Meyer v. United States, 5 Cir., 220 F. 822, 827; Williams v. United States, 57 App.D.C. 253, 20 F.2d 269. 37 Cli......
-
County of Todd, Minn. v. Loegering
...that the jury has been fairly and adequately instructed, the requirements of the law are satisfied * * *." Cohen v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 72 App.D.C. 258, 113 F.2d 523 (1940). 7 The author as he discusses "emergency" doctrine, appears to treat "his own negligence" and "his own fault" ......
-
Hussein v. Isthmian Lines, Inc.
...of such matters of mere form. Fleming v. Michigan Mutual Liability Company, 363 F.2d 186 (5th Cir. 1966); Cohen v. Evening Star Newspaper Company, 72 App.D.C. 258, 113 F.2d 523 (1940). A charge should seek clarity, not emphasis. Clarity was achieved. Furthermore, in a colloquy with the tria......
-
Van Camp Sea Food Co. v. Nordyke
...292; The Fullerton, 9 Cir., 167 F. 1. 7 Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. H. W. Nelson Co., 6 Cir., 116 F.2d 823; Cohen v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 72 App. D.C. 258, 113 F.2d 523; Galloway v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 4 Cir., 106 F.2d 466; Gardner et al. v. Dantzler Lumber & Export Co......