
    Mrs. Ethel OBEDIENCIA and Vincent Obediencia, Appellants, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellees.
    No. 25459.
    United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 14, 1968.
    
      Herman M. Schroeder, Sehroeder, Kuntz & Miranne, New Orleans, La., for appellants
    C. Gordon Johnson, Jr., Porteous & Johnson, Wood Brown, New Orleans, La., for appellees.
    Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge, and TAYLOR, District Judge.
   PER CURIAM:

Appellants complain of inadequacy of a jury verdict for personal injuries arising out of a truck-automobile collision and of improper jury argument of Appellees’ counsel. The accident occurred when a truck operated by Defendant Appellee Ryder Truck System backed into the Obediencia vehicle, as a result of which Appellants’ car sustained damages in the amount of $44.90. The jury awarded $1044.90 to Appellant Vincent Obediencia and $100.00 to Appellant Ethel Obediencia. Appellant Vincent Obediencia claimed to have sustained $1574.66 special medical damages, *13.25;0.0 of wP\ch ™as incurred for ex- and treatments by a Dr. Salatlch^ M^„?bedlf C1*. was jammed ^ a Dr- (PhllllPs’ 7h° diagnosed her mas “sPrain of7™*’- The nature; faster and extent of the mjuríes 0f Appellants, as well as the reason-flefss and necessity of their medical treatment and ^penses, are jury questions. The medical testimony presented by both sides is extensive and, viewing this record as a whole, the awards to the respective plaintiffs are not such as to g^oc^ the judicial conscience and raise an irresistible inference that passion, prejudice, or other improper cause invaded the trial Morgan v. Labiak, 368 p 2d 338 (10 Cir. 1966); B. F. Goodrich Tire Co Lyster) 328 F.2d 411, 418 (5 Cir. 1964). This point is without merit,

The record shows that 19-year old Ethel Obediencia was living with 58-year old Vincent Obediencia in what they believed to be a common law mar-r^age *-n°t recognized in Louisiana). The trial ^dge had ruled that evidence as ^is situation would be admitted and there was no objection to such rul- , ., . , , m, mg, and it is not questioned here. The argUmen^ complained of pointed out that Appellants were coming into U. S. District Court asking for something guaranteed to them by their constitutional rights, that is, a trial by jury, at a time when the two of them were living together, and had lived together, while both were married to other parties. No objection was made to this argument and ™ view of the admission of the evidenee it is not so inflammatory that it could not have been cured by a proper instruction by the trial judge. This Point also is without merit and accord-ingly the judgment of the trial court is

Affirmed.  