Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Shewmaker v. Capital Transit Co.

Shewmaker v. Cap. Transit Co., 143 F.2d 142 (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1944)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1944-05-29
Topic
general

MILLER, Associate Justice. The injuries complained of in this case resulted from a collision between two automobiles. Appellants, as plaintiffs in the trial court, contended that the accident was caused by the negligent operation of a streetcar owned and operated by appellee. The trial court denied motions to direct a verdict, which were made by appellee, first, at the close of appellants’ case and, again, at the close of all the evidence. After the jury had returned a verdict for appellants the court entered judgment for appellee upon a motion to set aside the verdict, made pursuant to Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 This appeal is from that judgment.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Shewmaker v. Capital Transit Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
87 opinions
SHEWMAKER v. CAPITAL TRANSIT CO.,143 F.2d 142(D.C. Cir. 1944)
SHEWMAKER et al. v. CAPITAL TRANSIT CO.
No. 8535.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Decided May 29, 1944.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Personal injury action by Russell N. Shewmaker and another against Capital Transit Company. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs, but the court entered judgment for defendant on a motion to set aside the verdict, and plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed.Page 143
Mr. Justin L. Edgerton, of Washington, D.C., for appellants.

Mr. H.W. Kelly, of Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. R.E. Lee Goff, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee. Mr. S.R. Bowen, of Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before MILLER, EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.
MILLER, Associate Justice.
The injuries complained of in this case resulted from a collision between two automobiles. Appellants, as plaintiffs in the trial court, contended that the accident was caused by the negligent operation of a streetcar owned and operated by appellee. The trial court denied motions to direct a verdict, which were made by appellee, first, at the close of appellants' case and, again, at the close of all the evidence. After the jury had returned a verdict for appellants the court entered judgment for appellee upon a motion to set aside the verdict, made pursuant to Rule50of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1This appeal is from that judgment.

The rule applicable in the District of Columbia on a motion for a directed verdict, in an action founded upon negligence, is that the evidence must be construed most favorably to the plaintiff; to this end he is entitled to the full effect of every legitimate inference therefrom; if upon the evidence, so considered, reasonable men might differ, the case should go to the jury; if, on the other hand, no reasonable man could reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the motion should be granted; a mere scintilla of evidence is not sufficient; the question is not whether there is any evidence, but whether there is any upon which a jury can properly proceed to find a verdict for the party upon whom theonusof proof is imposed; the burden being upon the plaintiff to establish the negligence and injury alleged, if the evidence fails adequately to support either element the motion should be granted.2The same rule is applicable on a motion to set aside the verdict under Rule50of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.3

While a verdict may properly be directed when there is no more than a scintilla of evidence,4or none upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a verdict for the party upon whom theonusof proof is imposed,5that was not the situation of the present case. The trial judge is to be commended for adopting the practice suggested by Rule 50; thus permitting a full trial and determination of the issues, instead of taking the case from the jury and necessitating, in case of reversal, a second bite or even successive bites at the cherry.6However, if the trial judge thereafter enters judgment n.o.v., then, as well as when he directs a verdict, his action must be subjected to the test stated in the preceding paragraph. Unlike the situation which exists when the judge acts as the trier of facts, the appellate court is required to balance the weight of the evidence against the judge's determination and in favor of the jury's determination. The question is, not whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings and decision of the judge, but whether there is evidence upon which reasonable men might differ as to negligence and other elements of liability; whether a jury of reasonable men could properly reach a verdict inPage 144favor of the party upon whom theonusof proof is imposed.

A careful examination of the record persuades us that the evidence presented questions appropriate for the jury's determination and that its verdict should stand.7

Reversed.Page 145
  1. 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. ↩
  2. Tobin v. Pennsylvania R.R.,69 App. D.C. 262,263,100 F.2d 435,436; Jackson v. Capital Transit Co.,69 App.D.C. 147,99 F.2d 380, and cases there cited. ↩
  3. Roberts v. Capital Transit Co., 76 U.S.App. 367,131 F.2d 871. See Pessagno v. Euclid Inv. Co., Inc.,72 App.D.C. 141,144,112 F.2d 577,580; Duncan v. Montgomery Ward Co., 8 Cir.,108 F.2d 848,852, modified on another point,311 U.S. 243,61 S.Ct. 189,85 L.Ed. 147; Jaggers v. Southeastern Greyhound Lines, Inc., 6 Cir.,126 F.2d 762. ↩
  4. Pennsylvania R.R. v. Chamberlain,288 U.S. 333,343,53 S.Ct. 391,77 L.Ed. 819; Jackson v. Capital Transit Co.,69 App.D.C. 147,148,99 F.2d 380,381. ↩
  5. Gunning v. Cooley,281 U.S. 90,94,50 S.Ct. 231,74 L.Ed. 720. ↩
  6. Montgomery Ward Co. v. Duncan,311 U.S. 243,253,61 S.Ct. 189,85 L.Ed. 147. ↩
  7. Munsey v. Webb,37 App.D.C. 185,188, affirmed,231 U.S. 150,34 S.Ct. 44,58 L.Ed. 162; LeFoe v. Corby Co.,38 App.D.C. 54; Standard Oil Co. v. Allen,50 App.D.C. 87, 267 F. 645; Washington, Alexandria Mt. Vernon Ry. v. Lukens,32 App.D.C. 442,454. ↩