Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Allen M. Labowitz, Administrator of The Estate of Natalie Nadine Labowitz, Deceased v. Donald Williams, and Third-Party, 286 F.2d 149, 3rd Cir. (1961)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views1 page
    The plaintiff appealed a jury verdict in favor of the defendant in a wrongful death case arising from a car accident. The plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by admitting testimony from a physician witness and by not clearly explaining the basis for damages under Pennsylvania's survival statute to the jury. The appellate court found no merit in either argument and affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that the jury was within its discretion to award nothing for lost future earnings given the health history presented at trial.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1961-01-23 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 286 F.2d 149 Docket: 13373_1

    Original Title

    Allen M. Labowitz, Administrator of the Estate of Natalie Nadine Labowitz, Deceased v. Donald Williams, and Third-Party, 286 F.2d 149, 3rd Cir. (1961)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The plaintiff appealed a jury verdict in favor of the defendant in a wrongful death case arising from a car accident. The plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by admitting testimony from a physician witness and by not clearly explaining the basis for damages under Pennsylvania's survival statute to the jury. The appellate court found no merit in either argument and affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that the jury was within its discretion to award nothing for lost future earnings given the health history presented at trial.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views1 page

    Allen M. Labowitz, Administrator of The Estate of Natalie Nadine Labowitz, Deceased v. Donald Williams, and Third-Party, 286 F.2d 149, 3rd Cir. (1961)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The plaintiff appealed a jury verdict in favor of the defendant in a wrongful death case arising from a car accident. The plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by admitting testimony from a physician witness and by not clearly explaining the basis for damages under Pennsylvania's survival statute to the jury. The appellate court found no merit in either argument and affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that the jury was within its discretion to award nothing for lost future earnings given the health history presented at trial.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 1

    286 F.

    2d 149

    Allen M. LABOWITZ, Administrator of the Estate of Natalie


    Nadine Labowitz, Deceased, Appellant
    v.
    Donald WILLIAMS, Defendant and Third-party Plaintiff.
    No. 13373.

    United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.


    Argued Jan. 13, 1961.
    Decided Jan. 23, 1961.

    Gene K. Lynch, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Dennis C. Harrington, McArdle,


    Harrington & McLaughlin, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
    Bruce R. Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Pringle Bredin & Martin, Pittsburgh,
    Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
    Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.

    This is an appeal by the plaintiff who is the administrator of the estate of a


    young woman who died following an automobile accident. There is no contest
    in this Court regarding the liability of the defendant; the complaints are: (1)
    admission of incompetent testimony by a physician witness, and (2) alleged
    failure on the part of the trial judge to explain with sufficient clarity to the jury
    the basis for an award under the survival statute of Pennsylvania. 20 P.S.
    320.601 et seq.

    We find no merits in either contention. The jury allowed nothing for loss of
    future earnings, which was fully within its discretion in view of the health
    picture of the unfortunate victim of the accident as the jury saw it.

    There was no reversible error and the judgment will be affirmed.

    You might also like