Court Opinion

ID: 9447425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:34:48.865871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:02.238053
License: Public Domain

DANAHER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The trial judge directed a defendant’s verdict when this case was tried in 1954. We reversed, finding that technically this appellant should have been given the benefit of the last clear chance doctrine, despite his negligence. As a practical matter, that the jury had concluded this appellant was substantially at fault at the time of the collision may fairly be deduced from the record and from our discussion of the verdicts as to his wife and child. See Rankin v. Shayne Brothers, Inc., 1956, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 214, 234 F.2d 35.
It is true that appellant’s counsel was ill when our retaxed bill of costs reached the District Court on November 2, 1956, but appellant then could have secured other counsel. Whatever considerations motivated his failure to do so, nothing was done thereafter to bring the case on for trial. Not until July, 1959 did the ap-pellee file its motion to dismiss. The District Judge concluded that there was lack of reasonable diligence in the prosecution of the action. It seems to me that he fairly could so conclude and properly dismiss the action. Barger v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 1942, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 367, 130 F.2d 401.
Appellee represented to the District Court without contradiction that its truck driver and helper, witnesses in the original trial, had disappeared and could not be found. More important, by 1959, appellant would seek to establish a claim to damages for brain injury, thus belatedly asserted to be attributable to the automobile collision which occurred January 3, 1951.
If this court were to say that the appellant, despite the difficulties here, was under no duty to move his action on for trial, I would place my dissent on' the ground that the District Judge had not abused his discretion in concluding otherwise. United States v. Pacific Fruit & Produce Co., 9 Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 367, 372. However, I understand my colleagues are not satisfied that appellee had sufficiently established the prejudice now said to have been occasioned by the delay. Taking that view of the present state of the record, I would narrowly condition the reversal, as we are empowered to do. *57Field v. American-West African Line, Inc., 2 Cir., 1946, 154 F.2d 652.
Presumably the appellant and his wife and the appellee’s absent witnesses testified truthfully at the first trial, the transcript of which is available. I would limit proof as to the issue of liability to that established on the record already made. Moreover, I would thereupon limit the appellant so far as his medical proof is involved, to evidence of his condition in November, 1956. I think the dilatory appellant should take nothing with respect to his present assertion of brain injury in the years thereafter when the appellee in 1956 could not fairly have been apprised of or be expected to meet any such claim.