394 P.2d 776

Charles HIGGINS, Appellant, v. Douglas LANTZ and Alaska Truck Transport, Appellees.

No. 432.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Aug. 14, 1964.

*777John M. Savage and Lloyd S. Kurtz, Jr., Clark & Savage, Anchorage, for appellant.

Daniel A. Moore, Jr., Delaney, Wiles & Moore, Anchorage, for appellees.

Before NESBETT, C. J., and DIMOND and AREND, Justices.


Appellant had asked for damages in the amount of $65,000 on his claim of personal injuries. A jury awarded him $500. On this appeal, appellant has submitted five specifications of error challenging the correctness of the trial court’s charge to the jury.

The first three specifications assert that the trial court committed prejudicial error in giving certain instructions to the jury.1 In none of these specifications has appellant set out verbatim those parts of the instructions considered erroneous,' as he was required to do by Supreme Court Rule 11(a) (6).2 Nor are the grounds of his objections urged at the trial set forth, which is also required by the rule. And while the instructions objected to are set out verbatim in the course of appellant’s argument, even here as to two of the instructions appellant has failed to set out the grounds of the objections he made to the trial court.

The remaining specifications of error relate to the failure of the trial court to give certain of appellant’s proposed instructions.3 Not only are the proposed instructions or the grounds urged for their adoption not set out as required by rule, but appellant has not pointed to any place in the record where he objected to the trial court’s refusal to give such instructions.4

Since the requirements of our rule have been disregarded, we shall not consider the errors intended to be urged on this appeal.5 The appeal is dismissed.

Higgins v. Lantz
394 P.2d 776

Case Details

Higgins v. Lantz
Decision Date
Aug 14, 1964

394 P.2d 776




Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!