H. A. Marr Groc. Co. v. Jones

Action was for damages for personal injuries of plaintiff arising from automobile collision, and judgment was for the plaintiff, and the defendants have appealed. ►

The defendants present argument for reversal under two propositions:

“Instruction No. 18 given by the Court to the jury was practically peremptory and was unwarranted under the facts.

“The verdict being a ‘quotient’ verdict, a new trial should have been granted.”

In the court’s instruction No. 18 the jury was advised as follows:

“You are instructed that if you find and believe from a fair preponderance of the evidence, facts and…