McGowan v. Gillenwater, 14212.
| Decision Date | 29 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 14212.,14212. |
| Citation | 429 F.2d 586 |
| Parties | Charles S. McGOWAN, as Administrator of the Estate of Mary Louise McGowan, deceased, Appellant, v. Thurston M. GILLENWATER and Terry L. Gillenwater, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Henry Hammer, Columbia, S. C. (Cromer & Louthian and Herbert M. Meeting, Columbia, S. C., on the brief), for appellant.
John W. Thomas, Columbia, S. C. (Wayne F. Rush and Roberts, Jennings & Thomas, Columbia, S. C., on the brief), for appellees.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and WINTER and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
The appellant seeks a new trial on the issue of damages in this personal injury case. With respect to the principal assignments of error, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district judge's opinion.
The appellant also contends that the district judge erred in striking the ad damnum clause of the complaint and in refusing to allow a per diem argument on the question of damages. We find the district judge did not abuse his discretion in barring from the jury the amount of damages alleged in the complaint. This was no part of the proof, and it had no role to play in the jury's consideration of the case. Williams v. Nichols, 266 F.2d 389 (4th Cir. 1959); Craven v. Associated Transport, Inc., 40 F.R.D. 8 (D.S.C.1966). Indeed the better practice ordinarily is to withhold all pleadings from the jury. The function of the pleadings is to notify court and counsel of the bare bones of the controversy, and rarely do they have any evidentiary value. The appellant's contention concerning the per diem argument was never properly presented to the district judge, and it cannot be raised at this time.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Anderson
...(4th Cir. 1971) 442 F.2d 1163, 1169, rev'd on other grounds 406 U.S. 797, 92 S.Ct. 1899, 32 L.Ed.2d 499 (1972); McGowan v. Gillenwater (4th Cir. 1970) 429 F.2d 586, 587; McKissick v. United States (5th Cir. 1967) 379 F.2d 754, 13 Wratchford v. S. J. Groves & Sons Company (4th Cir. 1969) 405......
-
Whittington v. Sewer Const. Co., Inc.
...as to that claim, assuming the sole unseaworthy appliance to have been the shorebased winch and its attendant choker. McGowan v. Gillenwater, 429 F.2d 586 (4th Cir. 1970); Cf. Garrett v. Gutzeit O/Y, 491 F.2d 228, 236 (4th Cir. 1974); Victory Carriers v. Law, 404 U.S. 202, 92 S.Ct. 418, 30 ......
-
Patterson v. American Tobacco Co.
...is seen that the method of computing damages was not considered by that court and is not properly before this court, McGowan v. Gillenwater, 429 F.2d 586 (4th Cir. 1970), so the detailed discussion of that subject is a dictum. If the district court, in ascertaining damages, adopts standards......
-
Johnson v. Carter
...respect to the Civil Service Reform Act, that Act was not mentioned until appeal and should not be considered by us. McGowan v. Gillenwater, 429 F.2d 586 (4th Cir.1970). As I have indicated above, however, I am of opinion that we should not reach either the Feres doctrine or the Civil Servi......