Legal Document

386 U.S. 317 87 Supreme Court Reporter 1072 18 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 75 Sandra Lee NEELY, etc., Petitioner,v.MARTIN K. EBY CONSTRUCTION CO., Incorporated Number 12. Argued Jan. 16 and 17, 1967. Decided March 20, Rehearing Denied April 24, See 1027, 1366. Kenneth N. Kripke, Denver Colo., for petitioner. John C. Mott, Denver, respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner brought this diversity action in District Colorado alleging that respondent's negligent construction, maintenance, supervision a scaffold platform used construction missile silo near Elizabeth, Colorado, had proximately caused her father's fatal plunge from during course his employment as Night Silo Captain Sverdrup & Parcel, an engineering firm engaged launcher system silo. At close petitioner's evidence again at all evidence, respondent moved directed verdict. The trial judge denied both motions submitted case to jury, which returned verdict petitioner $25,000. 2 Respondent then judgment notwithstanding jury's or, alternative, new trial, accordance with Rule 50(b), Federal Rules Civil Procedure.1 court entered on appealed, claiming its motion n.o.v. should have been granted. Petitioner, appellee, urged only be upheld. 3 Appeals held was insufficient establish either negligence by or proximate cause reversed 'with instructions dismiss action.' Without filing petition rehearing Appeals, sought writ certiorari, presenting question whether could, consistent 1963 amendments 50 Rules2 Seventh Amendment's guarantee right jury direct action. Our order allowing certiorari parties' attention 50(d) our decisions Cone versus West Virginia Pulp Paper Co., 330 212, 67 752, 91 L.Ed. 849; Globe Liquor company San Roman, 332 571, 68 246, 92 177; Weade Dichmann, Wright Pugh, Inc., 337 801, 69 1326, 93 1704, permit disposition appeals despite 50(c)(2), gives party whose is set aside 10 days invoke court's discretion trial.3 We affirm. 4 Under if moves elects send 'deemed' reserved decision motion. If returns contrary verdict, may within move This procedure rendered prior adoption 1938. Compare Baltimore Carolina Line, Redman, 295 654, 55 890, 79 1636, Slocum New York Life insurance 228 364, 33 523, 57 879, Aetna Kennedy, 301 389, 809, 81 1177. And it settled 50(b) does not violate trial. Montgomery Ward Duncan, 311 243, 61 189, 85 147. 5 here after reversing denial defendant's itself dismissal entry defendant. As far concerned, there no greater restriction province when appellate enters than does; consequently, constitutional bar granting supra. Likewise, statutory grant jurisdiction courts certainly broad enough include power appeal. Section 2106 Title 28 provides that, 6 'The any other affirm, modify, vacate, reverse judgment, decree, lawfully before review, remand such appropriate order, require further proceedings just under circumstances.' 7 Bryan States, 338 552, 70 317, 94 335. 8 brings us 50(c) 50(d), were added clarify proper practice Rule. Though more pertinent facts case, useful examine these interrelated provisions together. governs where has granted 50(c)(1) explains loser joined n.o.v., rule conditionally he grants reverses (1) 'the shall proceed unless otherwise ordered.' On hand, denies appeal, 'subsequent court.' Advisory Committee's Note makes clear, contemplates will review appeal and, necesary, conditional trial.4 necessarily includes deny cases. 9 applicable cases one expressly preserves who prevailed district urge also emphasizes 'nothing precludes' 'from determining appellee entitled directing determine granted.' Quite properly, recognizes prefer pass first upon appellee's suggestion. Nevertheless, consideration 'in instance' lodged appeals. permissive nature direction appeals: 50(c)(1), nothing indicating n. 2, supra, face inapplicable situation presented here. That regulates winner's opportunity In appealed. Jurisdiction over passed seek became dependent 50(d). 11 Committee explained, intended 'alter effects scope review,' articulated 31 F.R.D. 645. defendant but sent jury. After plaintiff, ordered ground court, consequently precluded Johnson York, N.H. H.R. 344 48, 73 125, 97 77, loser's 'set aside' did comply 50(b)'s requirement timely therefore could made we modified because 'suggestions complaint evidence' alternative theory liability might justify U.S., 808—809, S.Ct., 1330. 12 opinions above make clear failed strictly procedural requirements 5(b), record reveals issue resolved. Part Court's concern protect rights valid grounds some rather appeals, judge's firsthand knowledge witnesses, testimony, issues 'feel' overall case. These are very concerns constantly alert. Where plaintiff present, connection separate granted, voluntary nonsuit. Clearly, retains affords him press those same different obviously defendant-appellant plaintiff-appellee urges nonsuit appropriately addressed court. 13 But considerations do ironclad never plaintiff's Such would serve purpose speed litigation avoid unnecessary retrials. Nor mandate rule. Indeed, Pence 316 332, 62 1080, 86 1510, affirmed failure Henagan, 364 441, 198, 183, request wrongly Appeals.5 view cases, language jurisdiction, think discriminating approach preferable inflexible contends. 14 There are, situations setting raise questions subject matter dispositive law which, resolved favor, must terminate litigation. hold employer's suit against union, example, exclusive National Labor Relations Board, libel suit, absolutely privileged publish disputed statement. situations, others like them, can reason whatsoever prevent ordering 15 sets so terminated. Although many plaintiff-appellee's possible inadequacy survive gone place, remain important entitle erroneous exclusion strengthened possibility. Another insufficiency erroneously placing too high burden proof regularly characteristically deal. likelihood already ruled event, special advantage competence dealing them. They precisely kind losing below bring without ever moving Cf. 574, 247, 177. directly court.6 Final normally rests A ask give another chance fill gap proof. 217, 755. Undoubtedly, call exercise discretion. However, substantial why present necessary initial 17 challenge sufficiency likely full one. Thus, required designate print additional parts substantiate (or trial), undue arguing indicate brief aside. Moreover, choose own convenience trial: motion, argue suitable reversed. view, therefore, express adequate provision opportunity—which rule—to event brief—or appellant—the final presented, except informed presents rehearing, may, refer based factors encountered 19 us, won survived suggested reversed, nor she even though Neither stated, 'This fairly tried properly instructed.' It was, course, incumbent consider light experience assume ignored duty respect, although better dealt question. 20 short passage end Court, testimony witnesses concerning job perform. raised relevant portions transcript part circumstances, see deviating normal policy considering 40(1)(d)(2). Judge I. Case Borak, 377 426, 428—429, 84 1555, 1557—1558, 423; State California Taylor, 353 553, 556—557, 77 1037, 1039—1040, 1034. 21 Petitioner's pitched total lack rejected argument ordered. 22 Affirmed. 23 DOUGLAS FORTAS, while agreeing 50, their sufficient go 24 BLACK, dissenting. 25 N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions dissent three reasons: First, clearly cause. Second, refusal enter entirely powerless thus depriving winner throughly familiar Third, power, find manifestly unfair affirm giving today time holds must. 26 respondent, briefs merits oral argument, vigorously extensively themselves lower correct holding however, conveniently avoids facing issue—which completely dispose case1—by footnote statement encompassed certiorari. Besides fact seems me overly meticulous reading it,2 deal undoubtedly specifically emphasized usually 40(1)(d)(2) long provided option, notice plain error presented,' frequently disposed deciding crucial parties present. See, e.g., Brotherhood Carpenters, etc. 395, 775, 973; Silber 370 717, 82 1287, 798; Boynton Commonwealth Virginia, 454, 182, 206. If, believe, wrong concluding reversal violation Amendment, correct. 27 ample prove is, think, inescapably cursory undisputed record. father killed working missle-launching Colorado. Neely worked work certain concrete blocks suspended 130 feet bottom Respondent, carpentry responsible scaffolding silo, constructed wooden between two allow workers block other. platform, cover entire distance level Instead, horizontally away vertically blocks. Also, railing side No placed platform. When along fellow arrived they told foreman ready. way get jumping jump across two-foot side, diagonally climb railing. One worker successfully leaped block, fastened safey belt, looked back saw Neely, follow, falling head through hole block. failing jump, fell death below. consisted day foreman, carpenters closest fell. understandably, strong testify witnessed Neely's fall She did, however introduce several revealing photographs blocks, intervening taken immediately accident. objection, excluded showed nets accident, safety investigators. neither broke grease counsel asked considered safe adequate, replied negative, stricken ultimate issue. refused witnesses. time, carpenter put lunch hour nearing completed then. 29 characterized 'close case,' willing size concede 'that possibly something (Neely's) fall,' Reporter, 2nd 482, 486, purported circumstantial fall. cries reversal. constructing air, height workmen use belts, three-foot diagonal leap impossible, show cause, difficult concelve would. presence railing, shown reproduced record, reveal defects construction: vertical kickboard extending beyond into jumped; rough boards floor coming headfirst reasonable concluded tripped impediments merely stepped opening. short, believe Amendment deprive evidence. II. 30 Since consistently emphatically preserved litigant ruling 147, judge, unlike here, doing remanded directions overruling contention given Holding initially passing explaining result said: motions, presented. * instance, erred whom went respect asserted errors matters appealing judge.' Id., 251—252, 194. 32 thereby cure defect 849. Cone, loser. circumstances Noting '(d)etermination calls instance heard feel printed impart,' id., 216, 755 (emphasis added), 'a foreclosed having benefit question,' added). indicated loser, unsuccessfully likewise, wait until deprived suggestion—today accepted Court—that claim lose it. 218, 756. Following re-emphasized 177, vested exclusively again, where—as case—a made, Appeals' stand, but, relying Liquor, provide decide 809 8, 77; Fountain Filson, 336 681, 754, 971. 34 justified original factual tribunal almost universally federal state throughout years. reasons this. Appellate tribunals equipped try are. vast store information about cannot cold, said base perspective peculiarly available alone.' suitability unbroken line judges refusing trials practically unreviewable courts. Fairmount Glass Works Cub Fork Coal 287 474, 481—482, 53 252, 254, 255, 439; cited approval 253, 195, 35 Today's out harmony referred above. attempts pointing instances courts, assertedly utilized past. cites 5. instances. Pence, proceedings. withou slightest indication felt remand. effect Henagan every post-Cone note 54, 128, 3. 36 strained process reasoning. suggests litigant's derived Code KF62 § 2106. idea, 65, 134, argued now according made.' contention, deemed worthy comment dissented deals general indicates congressional overcome long-standing established practice, recognized finds supporting begs 'appropriate judgment.' 37 purports derive (d). notes cases.' But, fails recognize, prerequisite Here missing. 38 proceeds 50(c)(2) orders entered. so, ignores 50(c)(2). explained follows: 39 'Subdivision (c)(2) reminder verdict-winner entitled, him, usual course.' 646. 40 remotely loses initiative. Sections (c) (d) 1963, discussed decided. Notes indicate, implement importance winner, place hinted meant change contrary, stated alter review.' (Emphasis added.) 41 Certainly true section 'may, assert entitling concludes denying verdict' added) precludes (the court) Because 'is appeals,' 'there overlooks likewise appellee: 'may' trial; Contrary dismissed intention power. permitted embodied proposed, unadopted, 1946. assign failure, gave 218 6, rejection commentators, most allowed level.3 Finally, adopted, adopt found objectionable Cone. fact, carefully worded omission unintentional, adopted purport providing 42 today's flies teeth implement, withheld substitute justice requires III. 43 Even agree affirmance Here, appears thought simply lawsuit automatic necessity. petitioner, seeking support rely past plainly able While breath says 'will (of appeals) duty' 'consider '(t)his Appeals.' recognizing refuses grounds. 44 what done nowhere requirement. correctly summarizes 'an resolved.' least, Appeals. 45 gaps might, chance, eye-witnesses called adequacy judge. From particularly 46 'It conceded fall, was.' F.2d, 486. 47 surely idle conjecture exacting finder death. '(b) Motion Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict. Whenever later determination legal Not thereon *. prayed alternative. stand reopen requested directed. *' Principally, subdivisions 50: '(c) Same: Conditional Rulings Grant Motion. '(1) subdivision (b) rule, any, thereafter vacated specify affect finality judgment. denied, denial; subsequent '(2) pursuant 59 '(d) Denial following certiorari: 'Do 38(a) Procedure Constitution preclude instructing wherein plaintiff?' explains: 'If (t)he appellant, besides overthrow attack verdict.' Lind Schenley Indus., 278 (C.A.3d Cir. 1960), cert. 835, 58, 60; Moist Cold Refrigerator Lou 249 246 (C.A.9th 1957), 356 968, 78 1008, 1074; Bailey Slentz, 189 406 (C.A.10th 1951). Tribble Bruin, 279 424 (C.A.4th 1960). six addition Tenth Circuit's Capital Transit Gamble, App.D.C. 57, 160 283; Stopper Manhattan 241 465 Cir.), 355 815, 32; Richmond Television Corporation 354 410 Cir.); Mills Mitsubishi Shipping 358 609 (C.A.5th Lappin Ohio R. 399 (C.A.7th Massachusetts Mut. Pistolesi, 668 Cir.). circuits similar Ferro Concrete Constr. 112 488 (C.A.1st 697, 136, 452; Brennan 115 555 (C.A.2d 312 685, 614, 1123; Connecticut Lanahan, 113 935, modifying 375 (C.A.6th Sav. Loan Kearney Trust 151 720 (C.A.8th 'Even verdictwinner committed least trial.' Heretofore, faced issue, met head-on avoided unnecessarily discussing 50. Conway O'Brien, 492, 634, 969; Berry 450, 637, 945; Halliday 315 94, 438, 711. 'Question Presented,' opinion, whether—in 50(d)—Rule 'preclude Certainly, obtained To challenging states 'petitiioner moment interpreting negligence.' counsel's (d), '(i)n petition.' 382 914, 286, 230. Comment, 51 Nw.U.L.Rev. 397, 400—402 (1956); Note, 58 Col.L.Rev. 517, 524—525 (1958).

Classification Label: 7