Dumbroski v. Hintz

Per Curiam. James Jerome Dumbroski, Jr. (Dumbroski), the infant plaintiff and appellant, was injured in an accident in February of 1967. Suit was brought on his behalf and on behalf of his father, James J. Dumbroski, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County against appellees, William Emile Hintz and Harriet D. Hintz. The matter came on for trial and a jury returned a verdict in the amount of $2250.00 in favor of Dumbroski and $771.81 in favor of his father.

Dumbroski appeals to us alleging two errors, (1) the failure of the trial court “to fully instruct on damages or to amplify its given instruction on damages after exceptions thereto”, and, (2) the alleged error of the trial court in prohibiting counsel for Dumbroski from making a per diem type argument to the jury in his summation. We shall affirm the action of the trial court. If to instruction given by the trial court had been added language advising the jury to consider “whether the said injury is in its nature permanent, and how far it is calculated to disable the plaintiff from engaging in those mechanical employments and pursuits for which, in the absence of the said injury, he would have been qualified”, then the instruction would have been the usual form of instruction in use in Maryland since Bannon v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 24 Md. 108 (1866). 1 Basically the same instruction as was given in this case was given in Von Schlegell v. Ford, 167 Md. 584 , 175 A. 589 (1934). Judge Offutt there said for the Court: “It may be noted that nowhere in that prayer is there any specific reference to permanent injuries by that name; nevertheless its phraseology was broad enough to permit the jury, in estimating the damages, to consider whether the injuries which the plaintiff suffered were per ⁶⁹⁷ manent