Document: 387 U.S. 86 87 S.Ct. 1423 18 L.Ed.2d 581 IACURCI, etc.v.LUMMUS COMPANY. No. 6, Misc. Decided May 15, 1967. Arnold B. Elkind, for petitioner. Raymond L. Falls, Jr., respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner, whose husband was killed while testing the operation of a 'skip hoist,' brought this diversity action claiming that respondent had negligently designed hoist. The Trial Judge submitted question to jury in form special interrogatory which asked jury, if it found negligent design, 'please indicate' five specified design aspects hoist been unsafe. answer 'Yes' or 'No' with respect each enumerated factors. returned verdict petitioner, answering one subsections petti oner's favor and leaving other four unanswered. denied respondent's motion judgment notwithstanding jury's verdict, appealed. 2 Court Appeals its principal opinion* concluded 'we must take they (the jury) Lummus' negligence not established' as covered by unanswered interrogatory. court then held evidence did support finding fifth aspect reversed trial court's instructions enter Petitioner sought rehearing Appeals, noting her timely objection use arguing improperly restricted review design. Rehearing denied, judge again dissenting, petition writ certiorari followed. 3 We do share Appeals' confidence meaning, light instructions, failure subdivisions Perhaps intended resolve these questions favor; but might have unable agree on issues, simply passed upon them because another respect. In either latter two situations, petitioner would clearly deserve new trial, at least unresolved issues negligence. See Union Pac. R. Co. v. Bridal Veil Lumber Co., 9 Cir., 219 F.2d 825; 5 Moore, Federal Practice P49.03(4), 2208 (1964 ed.). Under circumstances, we think erred directing entry respondent; case should remanded Judge, who best position pass evidence, his charge answers. Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 50(d). Neely Martin K. Eby Construction 386 317, 1072, 75; Weade Dichmann, Wright & Pugh, Inc., 337 801, 69 1326, 93 L.Ed. 1704. Accordingly, leave proceed forma pauperis are granted, is vacated insofar directed respondent, remand District determine whether entitled trial. It so ordered. Judgment part instructions. 4 Mr. Justice BLACK reverse reinstate HARLAN (dissenting). 6 75, appeals might, despite denial motions appropriately instruct district against jury-verdict winner. also recognized Neely, however, there be situations necessity better determined court, such return an assessment. 7 joining I understand opinion require interpose own relative competence motion. Rather, understood place cur t responsibility determining 'in informed discretion,' supra, 329, 1080 S.Ct., which, any, urged 'should reserved court.' Ibid. sound judicial administration demands overturn considered only manifest abuse discretion. 8 instance states does 'not answer' subquestions included interrogatories. ambiguities now relies were earnestly Appeals. Petition 5—6, 7—8. They were, intended, before determination Had sitting agreed view taken majority there, cannot their conclusion 'informed discretion.' hope decision indicate about embark course comparable set itself FELA cases. affirm * addition, member panel concurred dissented. concurring opinion, though based completely different complex case, appears adopt interpretation answers find unwarranted.

Category: 7