Ingram v. Hallman
| Decision Date | 23 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 7345.,7345. |
| Citation | 330 F.2d 453 |
| Parties | Beulah INGRAM, Appellant, v. Jack W. HALLMAN, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Gerard K. Donovan, of Rogers, Donovan & Rogers, Tulsa, Okl., for appellant.
Dickson M. Saunders, of Doerner, Stuart, Moreland, Campbell & Saunders, Tulsa, Okl., for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
This case grows out of a collision between automobiles driven by the appellant, Ingram, and the appellee, Hallman. Hallman, while driving his automobile on an Oklahoma highway, had stopped at an intersection as required by a traffic sign. Ingram was following in her automobile and collided with the rear of Hallman's car after it had stopped. The collision was not severe, and damage to the cars was not extensive. At the time, Hallman did not realize he had been injured in any manner, except that he felt "a little stinging in my neck." The following day he began to suffer from pains in his neck and shoulders, and thereafter hospitalization and extensive medical treatment was required. The severe pain continued until relieved to some extent by surgery. One doctor testified that, in his opinion, Hallman was from 30% to 35% totally disabled. There was evidence that medical treatment and hospitalization in the future would be necessary. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Hallman for $20,000. This appeal is from a judgment entered thereon.
The only contention made here is that plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to prove that the accident was the proximate cause of the disability. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, defendant moved for a directed verdict, which motion was denied. Evidence was then introduced by the defendant, but at the close of all the evidence the motion for directed verdict was not renewed. It is well settled that the introduction of evidence by a defendant after a motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence has been overruled is a waiver of that motion, and the sufficiency of the evidence may not be challenged on appeal unless the motion is renewed at the close of all the evidence in the case. Cyc.Fed.Proc., 3d Ed., Vol. 9, §§ 31.77, 31.78, and cases cited; United States v. Alberty, 10 Cir., 63 F.2d 965; Fleming v. Lawson, 10 Cir., 240 F.2d 119.
We have, however, examined the record, and find that there is ample evidence to sustain the judgment. The evidence is without conflict that at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Karns v. Emerson Elec. Co.
...the close of all the evidence; failure to renew that motion bars consideration of a later motion for judgment n.o.v. Ingram v. Hallman, 330 F.2d 453, 454 (10th Cir.1964); Fleming v. Lawson, 240 F.2d 119, 120-21 (10th Cir.1956); Halsell v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 683 F.2d 285, 294 (8th Cir.198......
-
Slabaugh v. Ridlon
...Aircraft Corp., 890 F.2d 1540, 1551 (10th Cir.1989); Karns v. Emerson Elec. Co., 817 F.2d 1452, 1455 (10th Cir.1987); Ingram v. Hallman, 330 F.2d 453, 454 (10th Cir.1964); and Fleming v. Lawson, 240 F.2d 119, 121 (10th Cir.1956). See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 and 59; 9 Charles A. Wright & Arthur......