Saddler v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

Decision Date20 March 1967
Docket NumberNo. 4012.,4012.
Citation227 A.2d 394
PartiesWilliam SADDLER and Constance M. Saddler, Appellants, v. SAFEWAY STORES, INC., Appellee.
CourtD.C. Court of Appeals

King David, Washington, D. C., for appellants.

Jeremiah C. Collins, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before HOOD, Chief Judge, MYERS, Associate Judge, and QUINN (Associate Judge, Retired).

QUINN, Associate Judge.

Appellants sued in the United States District Court seeking $10,000 for personal injuries and $5,000 for loss of consortium allegedly resulting from appellee's negligence. After pretrial proceedings, the case was certified to the Court of General Sessions for tria1.1 Prior to and during the trial, appellants moved to amend their pleading by increasing the ad damnum clause to $125,000. These motions were denied, and judgment was subsequently entered upon a jury verdict awarding $7,200 to appellant-wife and $200 to her husband. This appeal followed.

Appellants' motions were based on the trial court's Civil Rule 152 which provides for amendment of pleadings, with leave of court, both in the interest of justice and to conform to the evidence adduced at trial. Our review of the denial of these motions is limited since we have held that although broad latitude is permitted by the rules, the granting of leave to amend is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge and only an abuse of that discretion is reviewable on appea1.3 Vasaio v. Campitelli, D.C.App., 222 A.2d 710 (1966); Simon v. Robinson, D.C.Mun.App., 135 A.2d 652 (1957); see Rubinstein v. Lichtenstein, D.C.Mun.App., 137 A.2d 219 (1957); 1A Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 454 (1960).

The testimony at trial showed that Mrs. Saddler was injured when a shelf containing canned goods fell on her while she was shopping in appellee's store. She was incapacitated and bedridden with a back injury for approximately six weeks and then she returned to work. About two weeks later, she experienced severe neck pains when she attempted to lift the child she was caring for. From that time on, she was unable to secure full-time employment, and this loss of earnings was the major part of the recovery she was seeking. Although it presented no evidence, appellee's defense was that Mrs. Saddler's neck injury and her subsequent loss of earnings were not the proximate results of the falling shelf.

The trial judge denied appellants' motions, noting that the evidence regarding Mrs. Saddler's loss of earnings was weak. After reviewing the entire record, we cannot say that he abused his discretion. Furthermore, we cannot see how appellants were prejudiced by the denials. The jury did not hear the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Eagle Wine & Liquor Co. v. Silverberg Elec.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • May 2, 1979
    ...merits." 355 U.S. at 48, 78 S.Ct. at 103. 3. See 3 Moore's supra, ¶ 15.08[4] at 15-86-91, and note accompanying; Saddler v. Safeway Stores, Inc., D.C.App., 227 A.2d 394 (1967). Compare Hagans v. Hagans, D.C.App., 215 A.2d 842 4. The court in that case correctly stated: A plaintiff is not pr......
  • Eskridge v. Jackson
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • May 7, 1979
    ...See, e. g., Keith v. Washington, D.C.App., 401 A.2d 468 (1979); Fields v. Hunter, D.C.App., 368 A.2d 1156 (1977); Saddler v. Safeway Stores, Inc., D.C.App., 227 A.2d 394 (1967). Similarly, denial of a motion to add a party under Rule 21 lies in the discretion of the judge. See Wright & Mill......
  • Blake Const. Co. v. Alliance Plumbing & Heating, 12223.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • July 3, 1978
    ...such amendments. See, e. g., Autocomp, Inc. v. Publishing Computer Service, Inc., D.C.App., 331 A.2d 338 (1975); Saddler v. Safeway Stores, Inc., D.C.App., 227 A.2d 394 (1967); Capitol Car Sales, Ltd. v. Nellessen, D.C.App., 217 A.2d 115 (1966); Zackery v. Mutual Security Savings & Loan Ass......
  • Autocomp Inc. v. Publishing Computer Service, Inc., 8005.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • January 20, 1975
    ...requires. . . . An exercise of discretion by the trial court is not disturbed upon review absent a finding of abuse. Saddler v. Safeway Stores, D.C.App., 227 A.2d 394 (1967). In refusing Autocomp permission to amend here the court expressed its concern over a delay in a trial already underw......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT