Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

244 F.2d 375

Docket No. 13561.

Geffen v. Winer

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued April 15, 1957.

Decided May 2, 1957.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1957-05-02

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“We have power in an appropriate case to remand only for redetermination of the amount of damages, excluding from the scope of a new trial the question of liability, see Washington Gas Light Co. v. Connolly, 94 U.S. App.D.C. 156, 214 F.2d 254 , and cases there cited. But our power in this regard is to be exercised with caution and not when the error which necessitates a new trial is in respect of a matter which might well have affected the jury's determination of other issues. Cf. Thompson v. Camp, 6 Cir., 167 F.2d 733. Here it appears from the record as a whole that the interests of justice will be best served by a new trial on all issues. * * *”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Rosa v. City of Chester, Nell Williams v. John R. Slade, John S. Slade

Relies on Hudson v. Lazarus · P. W. Siebrand & Hiko Siebrand, Doing Business as Siebrand Bros., Circus and Carnival v. George F. Gossnell and Estella Gossnell, S. J. Carroll v. George F. Gossnell and Estella Gossnell · Shea v. Rettie

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1957-05-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably Camalier & Buckley-Madison, Inc. v. Madison Hotel, Inc. (1975), United States v. Taxe (1976)

23 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions

1701957196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*376Mr. Bernard Margolius, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Carleton U. Edwards, II, and Ralph H. Deckelbaum, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant. ' ' -

¶2Mr. Richard W. Galiher, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. William E. Stewart, Jr., and Julian H. Reis, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for ap-pellees.

¶3Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and FAHY and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

¶4FAHY, Circuit Judge.

¶5In the District Court appellant was awarded a jury verdict against appellees for injuries growing out of the collision between a motorcycle he was-riding and a truck which was owned by one of the appellees and operated by the other. Although the evidence was sufficient to support such an instruction the court denied appellant’s request for an instruction that should the jury find in his favor they should take into consideration, in determining the amount of damages, the reasonable value of the time he had lost from his employment.

¶6Within the principles laid down by this Court in Hudson v. Lazarus, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 217 F.2d 344,1 the denial of the requested instruction was error which requires reversal, notwithstanding appellant was paid the amount, of his salary for the period he was unable to work.2

¶7We have power in an appropriate case to remand only for redetermination of the amount of damages, excluding from the scope of a new trial the question of liability, see Washington Gas Light Co. v. Connolly, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 156, 214 F.2d 254, and cases there cited. But our power in this regard is-to be exercised with caution and not when the error which necessitates a new trial is in respect of a matter which might well have affected the jury’s determination of other issues. Cf. Thompson v. Camp, 6 Cir., 167 F.2d 733. Here it appears from the record as a whole that the interests of justice will be best served by a new trial on all issues. For this reason the judgment is

¶8Reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

/244/f2d/375 · .json · Public domain