Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Cohen v. Evening Star Newspaper Co.

Cohen v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 113 F.2d 523 (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1940)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1940-06-17
Topic
general

MILLER, Associate Justice. On May 28, 1936, appellant’s twelve year old son was injured by a track owned and operated by appellee. The accident occurred immediately after the child had alighted from a bus and while he was attempting to cross the street at or near the intersection of Seventh and Girard Streets, Northeast, in the City of Washington. Appellant, as next friend of the child, brought this action in the court below to recover damages for the injuries sustained. Following a trial, the jury found a verdict in appellee’s favor; and this appeal is from the judgment based thereon.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Cohen v. Evening Star Newspaper Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
19 opinions
COHEN v. EVENING STAR NEWSPAPER CO.,113 F.2d 523(D.C. Cir. 1940)
COHEN v. EVENING STAR NEWSPAPER CO.
No. 7406.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Decided June 17, 1940.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Action for personal injuries by Joseph Cohen, an infant, by Charles Cohen, his next friend, against the Evening Star Newspaper Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.
Morris Simon, Lawrence Koenigsberger, Eugene Young, and Leroy S. Bendheim, all of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Edmund L. Jones and George Monk, both of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, MILLER, and VINSON, Associate Justices.
MILLER, Associate Justice.
On May 28, 1936, appellant's twelve year old son was injured by a truck owned and operated by appellee. The accident occurred immediately after the child had alighted from a bus and while he was attempting to cross the street at or near the intersection of Seventh and Girard Streets, Northeast, in the City of Washington. Appellant, as next friend of the child, brought this action in the court below to recover damages for the injuries sustained. Following a trial, the jury found a verdict in appellee's favor; and this appeal is from the judgment based thereon. All the points which are relied upon by appellant on this appeal challenge the refusal of the trial court to give five prayers for instructions offered by appellant. In our view the court committed no error in refusing these prayers.

A party has no vested interest in any particular form of instruction.1This is true, even though the proffered prayer may be unobjectionable in itself, standing alone, as a statement of law.2What the language of the instructions shall be is for the trial judge to determine.3If, on examinationPage 524of the entire charge, it appears that the jury has been fairly and adequately instructed, the requirements of the law are satisfied.4

A careful examination of the whole charge reveals that the instructions given covered all points material to appellant's case which were contained in the instructions requested.5It is significant in this respect that appellant offered no objections to the court's charge as it was given to the jury; either on the ground that the whole charge was inadequate, or that particular instructions were incorrect.6

Affirmed.Page 525
  1. Ayers v. Watson,137 U.S. 584,601,11 S.Ct. 201,34 L.Ed. 803. See Gassenheimer v. United States,26 App.D.C. 432,446; Shettel v. United States, ___ App. D.C. ___,113 F.2d 34, decided June 10, 1940. ↩
  2. Redman v. Smith,51 App.D.C. 131, 277 F. 533; Utah Power Light Co. v. Woody, 10 Cir.,62 F.2d 613. ↩
  3. Ayers v. Watson,137 U.S. 584,601,11 S.Ct. 201,34 L.Ed. 803; Washington Times Co. v. Murray,55 App.D.C. 32,34, 299 F. 903, 906. ↩
  4. McCartney v. Holmquist,70 App.D.C. 334,337,106 F.2d 855,858, 126 A.L.R. 375; Redman v. Smith,51 App.D.C. 131, 277 F. 533. ↩
  5. Capital Traction Co. v. Lyon,57 App. D.C. 396,401,402,24 F.2d 262,267,268; Dean v. H. Koppers Co.,49 App. D.C. 230, 263 F. 626; Utah Power Light Co. v. Woody, 10 Cir.,62 F.2d 613,614. ↩
  6. Nunan v. Timberlake,66 App.D.C. 150,154,85 F.2d 407,411. See Rule51, Fed. Rules of Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. ↩