Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Appellant, v. Daisy Mckenzie, Appellee, 237 F.2d 204 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
Annotate this CaseDecided April 19, 1956
Mr. Joseph S. McCarthy, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Wilbert McInerney, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. John Alexander, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. James K. Hughes, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, BAZELON and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellee recovered a $35,000 judgment in her personal injury suit against appellant whose counsel admitted liability in his opening statement to the jury. Reversal is sought on the ground that, since the pretrial order did not include the issue whether the accident caused or aggravated appellee's rare systemic disease of scleroderma, the trial court erred in permitting appellee to raise it. The record clearly shows, however, that appellant's counsel was aware that appellee was afflicted with the disease; that he professed some knowledge of its medical aspects; and that he did not ask for a continuance. In light of these circumstances, appellant may not claim prejudice by surprise.1 Since there is no error affecting substantial rights, the judgment is
Affirmed.
Rabenovets v. Crossland, 1943, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 54, 137 F.2d 675
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
