Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Edward F. Houff v. George W. Biser, 389 F.2d 388, 4th Cir. (1968)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views1 page
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a negligence case where one defendant was found liable by a jury for damages caused in a motor vehicle accident, but the other codefendant was exonerated. The liable defendant is appealing, arguing that the jury instructions were flawed and his requested instructions should have been granted instead to try to show liability on the part of the exonerated codefendant. However, the court found that under applicable Maryland law and the facts presented at trial, the instructions as a whole were acceptable and there was no error in refusing the defendant's requested instructions. Therefore, the district court's judgment was affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1968-01-26 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 389 F.2d 388 Docket: 11568_1

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a negligence case where one defendant was found liable by a jury for damages caused in a motor vehicle accident, but the other codefendant was exonerated. The liable defendant is appealing, arguing that the jury instructions were flawed and his requested instructions should have been granted instead to try to show liability on the part of the exonerated codefendant. However, the court found that under applicable Maryland law and the facts presented at trial, the instructions as a whole were acceptable and there was no error in refusing the defendant's requested instructions. Therefore, the district court's judgment was affirmed.

    Copyright:

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

    Edward F. Houff v. George W. Biser, 389 F.2d 388, 4th Cir. (1968)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes a negligence case where one defendant was found liable by a jury for damages caused in a motor vehicle accident, but the other codefendant was exonerated. The liable defendant is appealing, arguing that the jury instructions were flawed and his requested instructions should have been granted instead to try to show liability on the part of the exonerated codefendant. However, the court found that under applicable Maryland law and the facts presented at trial, the instructions as a whole were acceptable and there was no error in refusing the defendant's requested instructions. Therefore, the district court's judgment was affirmed.

    Copyright:

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

    389 F.

    2d 388

    Edward F. HOUFF, Appellant,


    v.
    George W. BISER, Appellee.
    No. 11568.

    United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.


    Argued Jan. 12, 1968.
    Decided Jan. 26, 1968.

    Hamilton O'Dunne, Baltimore, Md. (Patrick A. O'Doherty, Baltimore,


    Md., on brief), for appellant.
    Richard A. Reid, Towson, Md. (Royston, Mueller, Thomas & McLean,
    Towson, Md., on brief), for appellee.
    Before WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges, and KELLAM, District
    Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    In this diversity action, the codefendant held liable to the plaintiff for
    negligence in the operation of his motorvehicle, contends that he is entitled to a
    new trial in an effort to show liability on the part of the other codefendant, who
    was exonerated by the jury. Specifically, he assigns error in the instructions
    which were granted, and the refusal to grant others which he requested.

    Under the applicable law of Maryland and the facts developed at the trial, we
    think the instructions, when taken as a whole, were unexceptional and that
    there was no error in refusing to grant the requested instructions.
    The judgment of the district court is

    Affirmed.

    You might also like