Court Opinion

ID: 2963782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:15:09.095944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:46.374965
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1391

                                ERNEST L. SAMUELS and
                                 RULING ANGEL, INC.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                           HOOD YACHT SYSTEMS CORPORATION,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Lynch, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                     Aldrich and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                           _____________________

                                 ____________________

            Robert J. Murphy with whom Thomas E. Clinton and Clinton &  Muzyka
            ________________           _________________     _________________
        were on brief for appellants.
            Thomas  M.  Elcock  with whom  Richard  W.  Jensen  and  Morrison,
            __________________             ___________________       _________
        Mahoney & Miller were on brief for appellee.
        ________________

                                 ____________________

                                  November 21, 1995
                                 ____________________

                      ALDRICH,  Senior Circuit  Judge.    This  diversity
                                _____________________

            action  was brought in  the United States  District Court for

            the  District  of  Massachusetts  by  Ernest  L.  Samuels  of

            Ontario, Canada,  and Ruling Angel, Inc.  of Delaware, owners

            of  the sailing  yacht RULING  ANGEL, claiming  negligence by

            Hood  Yacht  Systems  Corp.   (Hood)  of  Rhode  Island,  the

            manufacturer of her mast.  The mast broke while the yacht was

            under  sail.1   The incident  occurred off  the coast  of St.

            Croix, Virgin Islands, with wind at 25-30 knots, and seas 6-8

            feet, which  the yacht's captain testified  was within normal

            Caribbean weather.  The mast broke in two, which her captain,

            testifying  to the  obvious, said  should not  have happened.

            However, at  the close of plaintiffs' case  the court granted

            Hood's motion for a directed verdict.  Plaintiffs appeal.  We

            reverse.

                      In addition to conceding normal weather Hood agreed

            there was no evidence of mishandling.   The captain testified

            that  the rigging  was sound,  and  had not  failed.   So did

            plaintiffs' expert, Hadley.   Although there was a suggestion

            that, before  designing  the mast,  Hood  had been  given  an

            understatement  of  the  vessel's  weight,  Hadley,  a  naval

            architect, testified that her "righting moment," the vessel's

                                
            ____________________

            1.  Strictly,  she was under sail and power, in order to head
            higher into the wind and clear the land ahead.

                                         -2-

            ability  to stand up to  wind pressure, and  a determinant of

            the needed strength of her mast, would have been the same.2

                      The  court's decision  hung  on its  resolution  of

            plaintiffs' expert's testimony.  (Emphasis ours, see post.)
                                                                 ____

                      THE COURT.  The question is, what is your
                      opinion as to what caused it?

                      HADLEY.  My opinion is there was cracking
                      in [the mast] that could not be resisted.
                      The  mast  itself  is a  barely  adequate
                      _________________________________________
                      design  structurally.    There . . .  was
                      ____________________
                      movement in  the mast . . . fore and aft,
                      excessive  movement  fore  and aft,  that
                      could have caused these cracks.

                                       . . . . 

                           The  mast  was  a   barely  adequate
                      design, and that any kind of crack, which
                      I  believe  existed  at  the  time, could
                      cause that mast to break.

                      Further  examined  by   plaintiffs'  counsel,   Mr.

            Clinton,  the  witness complained  of imperfect  placement of

            screw  fastenings leading the mast to crack.  The court again

            inquired:

                      THE  COURT.   It's my  understanding that
                      . . .   the  dismasting   . . .  occurred
                      because of two factors:  One, the cracks,
                      as you've displayed to the jury.

                      A.  Yes.

                      THE COURT.  And a marginal[
                                                 3]
                                                    what?
                                      __________________

                                
            ____________________

            2.  The force of this testimony is borne out by the fact that
            when  Hood made  a  replacement mast,  and  clearly knew  the
            vessel's weight, it did not make a heavier one.

            3.  The  word  "marginal"  seems  to have  been  the  court's
            interpretation of "barely adequate."

                                         -3-

                      A.  Factor of safety . . . the design was
                          ________________
                      barely adequate . . . it was barely large
                      enough  to perform the  task that  it was
                      asked to do.

                                       . . . .

                      THE  COURT.   So  what you're  saying is,
                      there's two factors, one is the cracks as
                      described.

                      A.  Yes.

                      THE  COURT.   And the  other is  that the
                                    ___________________________
                      mast itself was too --
                      ___________________

                      A.  Too light.
                          _________

            There followed a recapitulation  by the witness in  which the

            term  "barely adequate"  again occurred, ending  with further

            questioning by the court.

                      THE COURT.  . . . What caused the cracks,
                      did you say?

                      A.     I  believe  that  this  excess  of
                      movement which  would be existent  in too
                      light a spar could cause these cracks.

                                       . . . .

                      THE COURT.   So ultimately you're  saying
                                   ____________________________
                      that the spar was too light for the ship?
                      ________________________________________

                      A.  Yes.

                      THE COURT.   All right.  And if  the spar
                                   ____________________________
                      was too light for the ship, it means that
                      _________________________________________
                      it's  not  only  not  --  that  it's  not
                      _________________________________________
                      marginally  well  constructed,  but  it's
                      _________________________________________
                      poorly constructed?
                      __________________

                      A.   It  was too  marginal for  the ship,
                           ____________________________________
                      considering the service it  was to be put
                      _________________________________________
                      into, yes.
                      _________

                                         -4-

                      This last is an  interesting statement:  for RULING

            ANGEL's "service," cruising, there  is a different, a greater

            margin of safety needed than for  racing.  This point was not

            pursued,  but is  it  not  the  racers  who  crack  on  sail,

            regardless?    That  cruisers  need a  greater  margin  is  a

            recognition that not just wind and weather, but other matters

            as  well, require a reservoir  of protection.   Lack of care,

            wear  and tear  with no  repair, for  example, are  ills that

            cruisers,  not   needing  to  be  kept  up  to  scratch,  may

            particularly  suffer from.  The fact that it was not wind and

            weather,  but some  other  weakness by  which RULING  ANGEL's

            margin of safety was  exceeded, should not affect plaintiffs'

            case.   Nor is it material  that the ill  was not identified.

            This must be omnibus protection, or it would be meaningless.

                      Following this, Hood  moved that Hadley's testimony

            be stricken  because counsel's answer to  an interrogatory as

            to what Hadley would testify was given before Hadley had been

            consulted,  and hence was  a fraud on  the court.   Also Hood

            complained  because the  answer  omitted cracks.   The  court

            sustained the latter complaint.

                           His testimony is stricken just as to
                      his  testimony  regarding  the  crack  as
                      causing, as being  one of the  causations
                      of the dismasting . . .  the rest of  his
                      testimony    may     stand    for    your
                      consideration.

                                         -5-

            Hood did not object; nor has it appealed.  It cannot complain

            now.4

                      Thereafter Hadley's final cross-examination by Hood

            was as follows:

                      Q.  Just  so we're clear, you  too are of
                      the opinion that it was okay to put [this
                      mast] on, barely okay, but okay?

                      A.   If this  were my  design and I  were
                      specifying  a mast  to Hood, I  would not
                      specify  [this  mast].    It   is  barely
                      adequate.      I  would   recommend,  for
                      example, I said the factor of  safety was
                      about  one-and-three  quarters,  I  would
                      recommend  a safety of more like two-and-
                      a-quarter.

                      Q.   No  question, people  did.   But you
                      agree it's not dangerous, you agreed this
                      was adequate?

                      A.  Barely, yes.

                      Q.  And you said so in the --

                      A.  Yes.

                      Q.  Nothing else.

                      MR. CLINTON.  No further questions.

                      When, at the close  of plaintiffs' case, Hood moved

            for directed verdict the court ruled as follows:

                      THE COURT.   . . . [I]t seems  to me that
                      if  . . . the  basis  ultimately for  the
                      damages   was   the   alleged   defective
                      manufacture  and/or  design of  the mast,

                                
            ____________________

            4.  There was  no fraud  on the  court, in  any event.   See,
                                                                     ___
            Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)
            _____    _______________
            ("fraud on the court"  consists of "unconscionable scheme" to
            interfere  with  judicial  system's  ability   to  adjudicate
            properly).

                                         -6-

                      your  witness said that it was marginally
                      appropriate,  or  words  to that  effect.
                      How does it get to the jury?

                      MR.  CLINTON.    Everybody else  said  he
                      wouldn't have  put  it on  the  vessel[5]
                      . . . .    We  also  . . .  have  implied
                      warranty

                                       . . . .

                      THE  COURT.   He  said it  was marginally
                      good.   I'm going to grant  the motion on
                      that basis.

            The Appeal6
            __________

                      Manifestly this  ambivalent  witness had  not  been

            prepared.   Even after the perspicacious  court's questioning

            had straightened him  out (see emphasized testimony,  supra),
                                                                  _____

            on final cross he  lapsed back.  Nor did  plaintiffs' counsel

            get the  message.   Small wonder  a  frustrated court  called

            Enough.  However, should it have?

                      Hadley's  testimony  ran  two ways.    Omitting the

            final  cross,  a  careful   reading,  ante,  with  particular
                                                  ____

            attention to  the emphasized portions, and  special attention

            to where  the court's question begins,  "So ultimately you're

            saying . . . ." would warrant a finding that in the witness's

            opinion the design was (barely) sufficient in itself, but too

                                
            ____________________

            5.  Putting  it  bluntly,  nothing  that  anybody  else  said
            advanced plaintiffs' case.

            6.  Hood cites no authority supporting its contention that we
            should look to  Virgin Island law  because of the  fortuitous
            circumstance that  the vessel  was in that  jurisdiction when
            the negligent  design manifested  itself.  For  such lack  we
            stay within the forum.

                                         -7-

            light  -- slight  --  in the  sense  of  there was  added  an

            insufficient  margin of safety for  this ship.   Then, in the

            last cross, he took it all back.

                      Plaintiffs,   however,  were  not  bound  by  their

            expert's  reversal; the  jury was  free to  choose.   Lane v.
                                                                  ____

            Epinard, 318 Mass. 664, 63 N.E.2d 463 (1945) is an articulate
            _______

            example.  Plaintiff sued for breach of a contract to hire her

            as  a housekeeper.  Defendant  testified that this  was to be

            only  if his  present housekeeper  decided to leave,  and she

            decided  not  to.   Plaintiff  testified  that defendant  had

            agreed he would discharge her.  Plaintiff also testified that

            defendant  had not agreed to discharge her.  In affirming the

            trial  court's denial  of defendant's  motion for  a directed

            verdict the court said,

                           The    plaintiff's   testimony    is
                      contradictory  in  many  respects and  is
                      inconsistent  in  reference  to  material
                      aspects of her  case.   . . .   The  jury
                      . . .  could accept such  portions of her
                      testimony  as  they   deemed  worthy   of
                      credence.

            318 Mass. at 666, 63 N.E.2d at 465.

                      Where  a party  testifies finally  against her  own

            interest  she will normally be bound thereby.  See O'Brien v.
                                                           ___ _______

            Harvard Rest. &  Liquor Co.,  310 Mass. 491.  493, 38  N.E.2d
            ___________________________

            658,  659 (1941) (citing cases).7   A party,  however, is not

                                
            ____________________

            7.  We  note  that  the  Lane  court  did  not  consider  the
                                     ____
            chronology of  the plaintiff's conflicting  testimony and may
            have been generous in this respect.

                                         -8-

            bound by her witness' unfavorable testimony if there is other

            evidence.  See Lydon  v. Boston Elevated Ry., 309  Mass. 205,
                       ___ _____     ___________________

            206,  34 N.E.2d  642, 644  (1941), and  cases cited.   It  is

            rudimentary  that a  witness  may  be  believed in  part  and

            disbelieved in part.  Id. at 206, 211, 34 N.E.2d at 644, 646.
                                  ___

            Where Hadley  was self-contradictory, the jury  could believe

            whichever account it chose.  

                      To  repeat,  in  spite  of  Hadley's  final  cross-

            examination,  the  jury  could  have  accepted   his  earlier

            testimony that the mast's  design was too light in  the sense

            that it did  not provide a sufficient margin of  safety for a

            cruising   yacht.     A   directed  verdict   for  Hood   was

            inappropriate.

                      Reversed.
                      ________

                                         -9-