Lebow & Cooper Motor Lines, Inc. v. Reichel

PER Curiam. This is an appeal from a substantial judgment entered after ⁴²² a jury’s verdict, assessing damages for personal injuries suffered as the result of an automobile collision. The appellant seeks to raise three questions: (1) Should the trial court have instructed the jury that the per diem argument is not evidence?; (2) Was the appellee entitled to receive only the present value of his pain and suffering?; and (3) Should the per diem argument be abolished? However, we are unable to discover in the record any proper reservations of questions (1) and (2) for our consideration.

Maryland Rule 885. I During the trial, a blackboard had been used for the purpose of listing appellee’s income for several years. When appellee’s counsel reached his argument concerning compensation for pain and suffering, the following colloquy took place: “(Mr. Due) Your Honor, may I have an objection to this pain and suffering per diem argument ? “(The Court) I don’t know what the nature of the argument will be. “(Mr. Due) I take it it will be— “(The Court) You [appellee’s counsel] go ahead. I may interpose some instruction or comment, but we will wait and see.” Thereupon appellee’s counsel placed on the blackboard his per diem figures with respect to pain; and he made it clear to the jury that his figures were argument and that it was the jury’s function to determine the amount of money that would reasonably compensate appellee for his injuries.

Appellant’s counsel objected “to this matter on the blackboard.” Appellant’s counsel now insists that the trial judge “declined to allow” him to state the grounds of his objection, and the trial judge was duty bound, under our decision in