Ahlstrom v. Cummings
Cases that cite this one
54 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Kulawik v. ERA Jet Alaska (Alaska 1991)
- Hunter v. Philip Morris USA Inc. (Alaska 2015)
- Sebring v. Colver (Alaska 1982)
- City of Whittier v. Whittier Fuel & Marine Corp. (Alaska 1978)
- Sloan v. Atlantic Richfield Company (Alaska 1975)
- Alaska State Housing Authority v. Vincent (Alaska 1964)
- Bierria v. Dickinson Manufacturing Co. (Alaska 2001)
- Bohna v. HUGHES, THORSNESS, GANTZ (Alaska 1992)
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., Inc. v. Beadles (Alaska 1987)
- Dahle v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (Alaska 1986)
- Harned v. Dura Corporation (Alaska 1983)
- Clark v. City of Seward (Alaska 1983)
- Mullen v. Christiansen (Alaska 1982)
- Metcalf v. Wilbur, Inc. (Alaska 1982)
- Bailey v. Lenord (Alaska 1981)
- Amidon v. State (Alaska 1977)
- Poulin v. Zartman (Alaska 1975)
- Fruit v. Schreiner (Alaska 1972)
- Metcalf v. Bartrand (Alaska 1971)
- Maxwell v. Olsen (Alaska 1970)
- State v. 45,621 Square Feet of Land (Alaska 1970)
- Bertram v. Harris (Alaska 1967)
- State of Alaska, DFCS, Office of Children's Services v. Brett Lane (Alaska 2024)
- Korakanh Phornsavanh v. State of Alaska (Alaska Ct. App. 2021)
- Noey v. Bledsoe (Alaska 1999)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Appellants brought this action for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident. A jury found for the appellees. Appellants contend that errors were committed in the court below which require that the case be remanded for a new trial.
Appellants’ main point is that the jury’s verdict was contrary to law and the weight of the evidence, and therefore the trial court erred in failing to grant a new trial.
The matter of granting or refusing a new trial rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge. We shall not interfere with the exercise of his discretion except in the most exceptional circumstances and to prevent a miscarriage of justice. 1 The circumstances which would require our intervention do not exist here. From a review of the record we cannot say that evidence to support the verdict was completely lacking or was so slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust. 2 On the contrary, we find that the issues which the jury were called upon to' decide turned upon facts which were in dispute, and that there was clearly an evidentiary basis for the jury’s decision.
The next point on this appeal has to do with facts which showed that before the trial appellants’ counsel had told ap-pellee, Troy Cummings, that this action was a “friendly suit”, that appellants did not intend to seek personal recovery against him, and that an insurance company would be responsible for damages. These facts were brought out by Cummings’ testimony in direct examination, and by Cummings’ counsel in both his opening and closing statements to the jury. Appellants contend that to allow such facts'to go before the jury was prejudicial error.
At no time during the trial did appellants’ counsel contend that the statements made by Cummings’ attorney were improper and prejudicial. When Cummings testified as to what had been said to him regarding the friendly nature of the suit by appellants’ counsel, the latter not only voiced no objection, but went on to cross-examine Cummings on the subject of insurance coverage on the automobile involved in the accident. This is a clear case of a waiver by appellants’ counsel of any error that might have taken place. 3 Counsel may not remain silent, interpose no objections, and after a verdict has been returned seize for the first time on the point that opposing counsel’s statements to the jury or the testimony of a witness were improper and prejudicial. 4
As their last two points appellants argue that the trial judge erred in refusing to admit certain hospital records into evi *263 dence, and that the jury’s verdict was the result of passion or prejudice. We need not decide the question as to the admissibility of the hospital records, since they related to the issue of damages which passed out of the case when the question of liability was resolved in appellees’ favor. As to the verdict, there is nothing to indicate that the jury was ruled by passion or prejudice.
The judgment is affirmed.
. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Yeatts, 122 F.2d 350, 354 (4th Cir. 1941).
. See Miller v. Pennsylvania R.R., 161 F. Supp. 633, 641 (D.D.C. 1958).
. “In administering the rules of evidence it is a cardinal precept that if one has an objection to the introduction of evidence he must voice his objection promptly, and that if he fails to do so the objection is waived.” (Citing Alaska cases) Thomson v. Wheeler Const. Co., Opinion No. 163, 385 P.2d 111, 115 (Alaska 1963).
.Veal v. Newlin, Inc., 367 P.2d 155, 157 (Alaska 1961); Rank v. State, 373 P.2d 734, 736 (Alaska 1962).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.