Sloane v. Powell

E.D. New York

Sloane v. Powell

69 F. Supp. 1016, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2958

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedFebruary 7, 1947

DocketCivil Action No. 6962

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 F. Supp. 1016 (Sloane v. Powell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sloane v. Powell, 69 F. Supp. 1016, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2958 (E.D.N.Y. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

BYERS, District Judge.

Decision was reserved on defendants’" motion for a directed verdict at the close of the entire case; the jury disagreed upon-the question separately submitted to them, of whether the plaintiff Thomas Sloane was guilty of contributory negligence. Until that issue could be determined, the jury could not be expected to pass upon the other-issues, such as defendants’ negligence, and damages. The motion is now pressed for disposition.

The fact that the jury could not agree upon the fundamental element of the plaintiffs’ case (with the exception of the death action aspect of the administratrix’s cause) does not impose upon the court the duty of deciding that question; nor would the court be justified in so doing merely because of one disagreement. Whether the [1017]*1017plaintiff can convince another jury that, in spite of his admitted failure to look to the left as he approached this crossing, he should not be deemed culpable, need not be discussed; for him it is argued that the pillars in front of the station shown on Exhibit 5 would have obscured his vision anyway, although I do not understand that he testified that this is the reason why he did not look to the south. In other words, it is not a matter of plaintiffs’ chances of success at a new trial that ought to govern the decision of this motion, but whether, upon Thomas Sloane’s own testimony, his contributory negligence is established as a matter of law; there is much force in defendants’ argument that his testimony is susceptible of only that construction, but for reasons that I endeavored to state in the charge, it seems to me that on the present record, and explicitly confining the ruling thereto, an issue of fact is presented for consideration by a jury, and that the disagreement does not change the essential character of that issue.

Defendants’ motion for a directed verdict is denied. Settle order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BYERS, District Judge.

Decision was reserved on defendants’" motion for a directed verdict at the close of the entire case; the jury disagreed upon-the question separately submitted to them, of whether the plaintiff Thomas Sloane was guilty of contributory negligence. Until that issue could be determined, the jury could not be expected to pass upon the other-issues, such as defendants’ negligence, and damages. The motion is now pressed for disposition.

The fact that the jury could not agree upon the fundamental element of the plaintiffs’ case (with the exception of the death action aspect of the administratrix’s cause) does not impose upon the court the duty of deciding that question; nor would the court be justified in so doing merely because of one disagreement. Whether the [1017]*1017plaintiff can convince another jury that, in spite of his admitted failure to look to the left as he approached this crossing, he should not be deemed culpable, need not be discussed; for him it is argued that the pillars in front of the station shown on Exhibit 5 would have obscured his vision anyway, although I do not understand that he testified that this is the reason why he did not look to the south. In other words, it is not a matter of plaintiffs’ chances of success at a new trial that ought to govern the decision of this motion, but whether, upon Thomas Sloane’s own testimony, his contributory negligence is established as a matter of law; there is much force in defendants’ argument that his testimony is susceptible of only that construction, but for reasons that I endeavored to state in the charge, it seems to me that on the present record, and explicitly confining the ruling thereto, an issue of fact is presented for consideration by a jury, and that the disagreement does not change the essential character of that issue.

Defendants’ motion for a directed verdict is denied. Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 F. Supp. 1016, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sloane-v-powell-nyed-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack