Employers Casualty Company v. Dupaquier
| Decision Date | 20 November 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 21232.,21232. |
| Parties | EMPLOYERS CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. August E. DUPAQUIER, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Leonard B. Levy, Michael Osborne, and Dufour, Levy, Marx & Lucas, New Orleans, La., for appellant.
David R. Normann and Normann & Normann, New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, JONES and ANDERSON,* Circuit Judges.
Such inconsistencies as existed between the answer to the special interrogatory and the jury's general verdict were apparent in ample time for appellant to have moved for resubmission to the jury. Upon failure of the party to move the Court to resubmit the case, it was not error for the Court to reconcile the answer with the verdict as it did. See Jefferson v. Taiyo Katun, 5 Cir. 1962, 310 F.2d 582. 5 Moore, Fed. Prac. ¶49.04 at p. 2211.
The judgment is affirmed.
* Of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Merians v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
-
Tennessee Consolidated Coal Co. v. United Mine Wkrs. of Am.
...verdict on grounds of inconsistency with a special finding. Cundiff v. Washburn, 393 F.2d 505 (7th Cir. 1968); Employers Casualty Co. v. Dupaquier, 338 F.2d 336 (5th Cir. 1964). The court further held in Kirkendoll, in considering whether there was an inconsistency between special findings ......
-
Stancill v. McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc.
...they were announced by the jury, both parties waived any objection to inconsistencies under Rule 49(b). Employers Casualty Co. v. Dupaquier, 5 Cir. 1964, 338 F.2d 336, 337 (per curiam). The trial judge was careful to solicit objections from both counsel after the verdict was rendered and th......
-
Los Angeles Nut House v. Holiday Hardware Corp., s. 85-6039
...in negative).Other cases, while discussing waiver, do not actually rely on it for their resolution. Employers Casualty Co. v. Dupaquier, 338 F.2d 336, 337 (1964) (per curiam) ("Upon failure of the party to move the Court to resubmit the case, it was not error for the Court to reconcile the ......