of proof. In addition, there was absence of proof of any causal connection between the serving of intoxicants and decedent's death. No one knows just where decedent was struck. He may have been on the berm of the highway (where his body was found) when struck or in his inebriated condition may have wandered into the main traffic lanes of Interstate 90 and been hit. Furthermore, a judicial determination that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and the law requires consideration of the entire transcript which plaintiff has failed to provide.
Plaintiff's basic complaint is that the jury found against her, but this we cannot help. Plaintiff also complains that the closing argument of defense counsel was improper. The plaintiff having presented neither transcript nor case law in support of this contention, the court must reject such argument. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted an affidavit to the effect that his conversation with several jurors indicated that a basis of their verdict was a belief that decedent had consumed additional alcoholic beverages during the ride back to Erie. The law is quite clear that affidavits of jurors are not admissible to impeach their verdict in the absence of extraneous influence upon them. McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 35 S. Ct. 783, 59 L. Ed. 1300 (1915); International Forwarding Co. v. Bison Freightways, Inc., 316 F. Supp. 464 (M.D. Pa. 1970); York Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 447 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1971). Furthermore plaintiff made no objection at trial to the closing argument now complained of. Clearly the failure to so object acts as a waiver of the right later to raise the issue: United States v. Chicarelli, 445 F.2d 1111 (3rd Cir. 1971).
The final argument advanced by plaintiff in support of Motion for New Trial is that defense counsel made repeated objections to the plaintiff's closing argument thus giving the jury the erroneous impression that the plaintiff's counsel was arguing improperly, and therefore prejudiced the jury against the plaintiff's case. While the court has been furnished with a small excerpt of plaintiff's summation, the defendant's objections therein pertaining to plaintiff's repeated assurances to jury that they were not sitting in a criminal prosecution were not so grossly improper as to prejudice plaintiff's case. The court in its discretion overruled these objections. Were every objection raised interpreted as prejudice to the opposing party's case, courtroom litigation must surely be ended. As a matter of fact, the record shows the court admonished defense counsel to cease and refused to permit any further objections. This altercation, if anything, would redound to plaintiff's benefit since the jury would be left with the impression that defense counsel was out of order.
The plaintiff's Motion for New Trial must be denied.