remarking that “[wjhether, under .the circumstances of the particular case the error has been cured by a cautionary instruction is normally ‘a matter for the proper exercise of the sound discretion of the trial court,’ and ‘only in the event of a manifest abuse of judicial discretion should the appellate court interfere,’ with the exercise of that discretion.”
How later courts described this case
- remarking that “[wjhether, under .the circumstances of the particular case the error has been cured by a cautionary instruction is normally ‘a matter for the proper exercise of the sound discretion of the trial court,’ and ‘only in the event of a manifest abuse of judicial discretion should the appellate court interfere,’ with the exercise of that discretion.”
- involving an analogous situation in which the court concluded that a cautionary instruction will generally cure any error resulting from the erroneous introduction of evidence; especially when the error is not dwelled16 upon
- suggesting that §§ 343 and 343A might apply in § 5(b) cases; Napoli v. [Transpacific Carriers Corp. and Universal Cargo Carriers, Inc.] Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 536 F.2d 505, 508-09 (2d Cir. 1976) (applying §§ 343 and 343A in a § 5(b) action
- “the Amendments . . . declared that .. . liability .. . was governed by ‘land-based’ negligence principles and not by ‘maritime negligence concepts.’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result in this case and also in the opinion.
I add a note only to point out that part II of the opinion, which I consider to be a correct statement of the law, seems to me to be irreconcilable with, and, since we do not overrule absent an en banc court, will certainly limit to its facts, Leathers v. General Motors Corp., 546 F.2d 1083 (4th Cir. 1976), where, in a less strained situation, we held a curative instruction offered by the trial court could not correct a rather innocuous, unobjected to, golden rule type argument.