State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Scott, 13792.
| Decision Date | 31 July 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 13792.,13792. |
| Citation | 198 F.2d 152 |
| Parties | STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO. v. SCOTT. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Richard H. Switzer, Harry A. Johnson, Jr., Shreveport, La., for appellant.
Jackson B. Davis, Shreveport, La., for appellee.
Before HOLMES, RUSSELL and RIVES, Circuit Judges.
In this suit to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained in an automobile accident, appellant, as defendant, suffered an adverse verdict and judgment. In this appeal it assigns error upon the grounds: that the admission in evidence over the objection of appellant of testimony of an injury to the left knee of plaintiff of a different nature and more serious extent than that alleged in the complaint, was erroneous; error in failing to set aside the verdict because of its excessiveness; in failing to set aside the verdict and judgment notwithstanding it upon the ground that the evidence shows that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, and; in refusing to allow counsel to argue to the jury the quantum of awards made in similar cases by the Appellate Courts of Louisiana, and in refusing to charge the jury to the same effect.
The last mentioned point we have discussed and ruled, adversely to the contentions of appellant, in Gillen v. Phoenix Indemnity Co., 5 Cir., 198 F.2d 147.
In his complaint, the appellee alleged that as a result of the collision he sustained a "marked swelling, three one inch lacerations and a sprain of the left knee." In another paragraph he alleged that he suffered additional permanent injuries to his left knee "with the left knee having a ruptured or torn disc", which caused difficulty in raising it. The evidence objected to tended to show that the left knee cap had been fractured, and that a rough under surface remained. It is true that this discloses a more serious injury than alleged. However, it appears that the defendant requested that the plaintiff submit to a physical examination by its physician a few days prior to the trial and that upon this examination the knowledge of the actual extent of the injury became known to such physician. The present Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. have abrogated the function of the complaint to state fully and in detail the claims upon which the plaintiff will rely and litigants have the responsibility of limiting such claims by employing the discovery methods so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts
...for a new trial dated January 14, 1964. Butts v. Curtis Publishing Company, 225 F.Supp. 916." 44 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Scott (5th Cir. 1952) 198 F.2d 152. Curtis cites Crowell-Collier Publishing Company v. Caldwell (5th Cir. 1948), 170 F.2d 941, where this Court ......
-
Redfern v. Collins
...Rule 26 et seq., F.R.C.P., so amply available. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 and State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Scott, 5 Cir., 198 F.2d 152. The attorneys for the Defendants should present an appropriate form of order for signing and entry. 1 Subsecti......
-
Nat'l Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v. R&R Marine, Inc.
...26.See Sundstrand Corp. v. Standard Kollsman Indus., Inc., 488 F.2d 807, 811 (7th Cir.1973) (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Scott, 198 F.2d 152, 153 (5th Cir.1952)). 27.Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Time Warner Entm't Co., 244 S.W.3d 885, 888–89 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied); see al......
-
Greyhound Corporation v. Dewey
...set aside its finding or direct a remittitur. Gillen v. Phoenix Indemnity Co., 5 Cir., 1952, 198 F.2d 147, and State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Scott, 5 Cir., 1952, 198 F.2d 152. The Court here exercised this right and ordered a remittitur of $10,000.00. The amount of the judgment, when c......