Wendy v. McLean Trucking Company
| Decision Date | 30 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 342,Docket 26980.,342 |
| Citation | 279 F.2d 958 |
| Parties | Maurice WENDY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McLEAN TRUCKING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Samuel B. Weingrad, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
B. Hoffman Miller, of Fuchsberg & Fuchsberg, New York City (Robert Keegan, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CLARK, MOORE and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.
Defendant attacks the verdict and judgment for plaintiff in this personal injury and property damage action as against the "weight" of the credible evidence and "unsupported" by competent evidence. But this contention is obviously without merit. The evidence was ample to show that the driver of defendant's truck and trailer, proceeding on a rainy afternoon on the lower ramp of the Manhattan Bridge toward Manhattan, hurried to pass a car in front of him and either skidded or drove across the center lane to hit the plaintiff's car going toward Brooklyn in the far lane on the latter's right. Defendant also claims that the jury's allowance of $30,000 for plaintiff's personal injuries was excessive (the parties having agreed upon $750 for the injury to the car). But plaintiff had shown a loss of earnings of $10,000 to the date of the trial; and even though he was then 67, the testimony justified an expectancy of perhaps $15,000 more, leaving little to be accounted for by past and future pain and suffering. And the medical testimony, while somewhat meager in quantity, did show substantial injury.
There remains the claim of unfair trial because of the actions of the trial judge. Certainly the trial was not a tidy one; but upon consideration of the entire record we think what difficulties occurred bore equally on each side and that the ultimate submission to the jury was fair. Plaintiff and his son, the driver of his car, appeared temporarily reluctant to yield relevant evidence; this seemed to provoke the defense counsel into an overly aggressive attitude; and this, in turn, led the judge into a considerable amount of conversation and direction of the trial. During the trial the judge allowed an amendment doubling the amount claimed in the ad damnum clause — a superfluous act under the civil rules and probably undesirable as giving undue emphasis to a matter of no importance once the parties were at issue. F.R.Civ.Proc. 54(c), 28 U.S.C.A.; Couto v. United Fruit Co., 2 Cir., 203 F.2d 456, 457...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodman v. Poland
...changing the amount, or nature, of the relief prayed for is, therefore, actually unnecessary. See Wendy v. McLean Trucking Co., 279 F.2d 958, 959 (2nd Cir. 1960) (per curiam); 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1497, at 493-95 (1971). Thus, under the Federal Rules "a pa......
-
Opper v. Hancock Securities Corporation
...he is entitled to recover the damages he proved. Couto v. United Fruit Co., 203 F.2d 456, 457 (2d Cir. 1953); Wendy v. McLean Trucking Company, 279 F.2d 958, 959 (2d Cir. 1960). We hold that plaintiff should have the higher Between August 4 and Friday, August 7, 1964, defendant sold 1,910 o......
-
Troutman v. Modlin
...States for Use of Bachman & Keffer Const. Co. v. H. G. Cozad Construction Co., 324 F.2d 617, 619-620 (10 Cir. 1963); Wendy v. McLean Trucking Co., 279 F.2d 958 (2 Cir. 1960); Vol. 3 Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure, § Moreover, the proceedings (authorized by Rule 15(b) F.R.......
-
DeCicco v. Trinidad Area Health Ass'n
...Co. v. Sponder, 414 F.2d 317 (5th Cir. 1969); Stroud v. B-W Acceptance Corp., 372 F.2d 185 (10th Cir. 1967); Wendy v. McLean Trucking Co., 279 F.2d 958 (2d Cir. 1960). Accordingly, here the trial court's amendment of the verdict to limit plaintiff's recovery to the amount claimed in the ple......
-
Bankruptcy - Robert B. Chapman
...Brandt v. Gerardo (In re Gerardo Leasing, Inc.), 173 B.R. 379, 388-89 (Bankr. N.D. 111. 1994). See also Wendy v. McLean Trucking Co., 279 F.2d 958, 958-59 (2d Cir. 1960) (holding amendment of ad damnum clause is unnecessary); wright & miller: federal Prac. & proc. Sec. 1497 (2d ed. 1990) (s......