Paul
Paul v. Elliot
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Garrecht, J.
Inez Elliot instituted an action in the state court of Montana against H. B. Paul in which she demanded damages for injuries arising out of an automobile collision; on motion of the defendant the case was removed therefrom to the United States District Court for the District of Montana. The cause was tried to a jury, which returned its verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $4098.60, and the defendant appeals.
The plaintiff was riding as a passenger in a four-door Ford Sedan automobile driven by her sister Irene Elliot. Plaintiff, Irene, and their thirteen-year-old niece, Jean Elliot, were riding in the front seat of their car, plaintiff on the right and the niece in the middle; the rear seat was piled with luggage. At the time of the accident the defendant was alone in his four-door Dodge Sedan.
The accident occurred January 4, 1937, on the road between Roundup and Billings, Montana, about twenty miles south of Roundup and about thirty-three miles north of Billings. At this point the road curves around an abrupt rise or bluff, which forms an oblique angle to the roadbed. The bluff had been cut on the west side and a fill-in made at that point to form a base for the…
Concurring Opinion
Healy, J.
(concurring).
Where requested instructions are adopted they become the instructions of the court, of equal dignity with those given, of the court’s own motion, and I think the practice of commenting on their source should have our clearly expressed disapproval. Attempts of the trial judge to differentiate such instructions from those formulated by himself necessarily tend to render them of less weight in the deliberations of the jury than if they had not been so tagged. The harm done is not cured by treating with equal disparagement the instructions offered by the other party.
For the reasons last given in the main opinion, I agree that the comments in this instance were not reversible error.