Ted G. Cox, Kathleen Cox, Husband and Wife; Celestia Cox;kathleen Cox, As Guardian of Caleb A. Cox,zachariah D. Cox, and Jordan S. Cox,minors, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Redi-therm Insulation Inc., a Utah Corporation; Darleneotteson, Administratix of the Estate of Alfotteson, Defendants-appellees, 77 F.3d 492 (10th Cir. 1996)

HENRY

In this diversity action, the Coxes brought suit against Redi-Therm and its agent, Alf Otteson, for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The Coxes alleged that Alf Otteson negligently struck their vehicle while driving a truck within his capacity as a Redi-Therm employee. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

On appeal, the Coxes assert four grounds for the reversal of the district court's entry of judgment. First, they contend that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of Mr. Andrews, an expert accidentologist. Second, the Coxes argue that the district court abused its discretion by issuing a limiting instruction regarding certain hearsay statements. Third, the Coxes argue that the district court abused its discretion by entering judgment on a jury verdict after the jury deliberated for only one hour and five minutes. Finally, the Coxes contend that the district court committed fundamental error by allowing Redi-Therm's counsel to make certain comments during opening and closing arguments, even though the Coxes failed to enter a timely objection.

We have reviewed these arguments and find them lacking in merit. The district court neither abused its discretion nor committed fundamental error. We therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court.