From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines v. McKenzie

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Apr 19, 1956
237 F.2d 204 (D.C. Cir. 1956)

Opinion

No. 12897.

Argued March 27, 1956.

Decided 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.


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. Since there is no error affecting substantial rights, the judgment is

Rabenovets v. Crossland, 1943, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 54, 137 F.2d 675.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines v. McKenzie

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Apr 19, 1956
237 F.2d 204 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
Case details for

Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines v. McKenzie

Case Details

Full title:PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, Appellant, v. Daisy McKENZIE, Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Apr 19, 1956

Citations

237 F.2d 204 (D.C. Cir. 1956)
99 U.S. App. D.C. 50

Citing Cases

Rosden v. Leuthold

" For we think that this case is governed by the rules applicable to retrospective amendment of the pleadings…

Manbeck v. Ostrowski

Compare Johnson v. Geffen, supra note 28, 111 U.S.App.D.C. at 3-4, 294 F.2d at 199-200; Rosden v. Leuthold,…