DePaolo v. Martin
Case Date: 02/22/1995
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 94-1715
|
February 22, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 94-1715 ANTHONY DEPAOLO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FREDERICK MARTIN, AND CAPE COD REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendants - Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________ and Stahl, Circuit Judge. _____________ _____________________ John N. Lewis, with whom Ravech, Aronson, Shuman & Lewis, _____________ __________________________________ P.C., was on brief for appellant. ____ Darrell Mook, with whom Burns & Levinson, was on brief for ____________ ________________ appellees. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. Plaintiff-Appellant, Anthony DePaolo Per Curiam ___________ ("DePaolo"), appeals the district court's jury instruction to the effect that he could be found comparatively negligent for not wearing a bicycle helmet. DePaolo failed to object to this instruction subsequent to the jury charge and, consequently, waived that objection pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51. Wartski v. Bedford, 926 F.2d 11, 21-22 (1st Cir. 1991); Coy _______ _______ ___ v. Simpson Marine Safety Equip., Inc., 787 F.2d 19, 25-26 (1st ___________________________________ Cir. 1986). In the absence of compliance with Rule 51, we review only for plain error amounting to a "miscarriage of justice." Elgabri v. Lekas, 964 F.2d 1255, 1259 (1st Cir. 1992). We have _______ _____ reviewed the instructions given by the district court and find no plain error. Affirmed. ________ |