Nollenberger v. United Air Lines, Inc.

Decision Date12 April 1963
Docket Number62-1606.,No. 62-1600 to 62-1602,62-1600 to 62-1602
Citation216 F. Supp. 734
PartiesCatherine B. NOLLENBERGER et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC., a corporation, Defendant. Pernita C. THOMPSON et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC., a corporation, Defendant. Myrtle C. THEOBALD et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC., a corporation, Defendant. Marjorie I. MATLOCK et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC., a corporation, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of California

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Ben Margolis, and Robert G. Johnson, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs.

Hugh B. Rotchford and James J. McCarthy, Los Angeles, Cal., for United Air Lines.

HALL, Chief Judge.

The within cases are wrongful death actions arising out of the same mid-air collision described in the Opinions dated November 14, 1962, and December 7, 1962, and found in United States v. United Air Lines, Inc., D.C., 216 F.Supp. 709, to which reference is made for more detail.

As will be seen from the above-mentioned Opinion of November 14, 1962, the Court consolidated the Nollenberger case with the Matlock, Theobald, Thompson, Klehfoth and Paris cases in the District of Nevada for joint trial to one jury on both the question of liability and damages. By the same Order, the Crossclaims of the United States against United Air Lines and the Cross-claims of United Air Lines against the United States were severed for trial from the claims of the individual plaintiffs against United Air Lines.

On December 5, 1962, the Court, after argument on motions of the plaintiffs, indicated that it would grant summary judgment, in the consolidated cases, against United Air Lines on the question of liability only, as is further seen from the above-mentioned Opinion of December 7, 1962.

Thereafter, and on December 10, 1962, counsel stipulated for a change of venue for the trial of the issue of damages, from the District of Nevada to the Southern District of California, Central Division, in the Nollenberger, Matlock, Theobald, Thompson, Pebles, Paris and Darmody cases.1

In the Pebles and Darmody cases, pending against United Air Lines only, the parties stipulated to the amount of a judgment, reserving all rights on appeal.

The Court then proceeded to try the Paris, Nollenberger, Matlock, Theobald and Thompson cases in the Southern District of California to a single jury, in that order, receiving a verdict in each case before proceeding with the next case.2

The matters now before the court are the motions of the plaintiffs in the Nollenberger, Thompson, Theobald and Matlock cases3 for relief under the provisions of F.R.Civ.P., rule 49(b)4 which was utilized for the purpose of submitting special interrogatories and a general verdict to the jury in each of those four cases.

There is also before the Court the Motion of defendant United Air Lines to strike the affidavit of Chapin which plaintiffs filed in support of their motions.

The plaintiffs (except Paris) originally filed a motion for new trial only, on the following grounds:

(1) Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the judgment;

(2) Inadequate damages contrary to the evidence; and

(3) Inconsistency of the general verdict with the special verdict.

Thereafter, at the conclusion of the trial of all five of the cases, the plaintiffs renewed their motion on the same grounds in the Nollenberger, Matlock, Theobald and Thompson cases, but moved, in the alternate, for one of three procedures:

(1) That the Court submit additional interrogatories to the jury;

(2) That the Court calculate the general damages from the answers to the special interrogatories and enter judgment for such sum; or

(3) That the Court grant a new trial.

By the express terms of Rule 49(b), F.R.Civ.P., where the special findings of fact in response to special interrogatories are consistent with each other but one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict, "the court may direct the entry of judgment in accordance with the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict or may return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or may order a new trial."

The procedures authorized by the rule are not new. Examples of the use of such procedures before the promulgation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938, and while the Conformity Act was in effect, are found in: Prentice v. Zane's Administrator (1850), 8 How. 49 U.S. 470-483, 12 L.Ed. 1160; Graham v. Bayne (1855) 18 How. 59 U.S. 60, 63, 15 L.Ed. 265; United States v. Pinover (D.C., 1880) 3 F. 305; Spokane & I. E. R. Co. v. Campbell (C.C.A.9, 1914) 217 F. 518, aff'd 241 U.S. 497, 36 S.Ct. 683, 60 L.Ed. 1125; United States v. McPhee (C.C.A.9, 1929) 31 F.2d 243.

There can be no question of the constitutionality of the rule or in following any one of the alternate procedures set out by it in view of Walker v. New Mexico & So. Pacific R. R. Co., (1897) 165 U.S. 593, 17 S.Ct. 421, 41 L.Ed. 837, which held that a statute of the then Territory of New Mexico containing similar provisions did not contravene the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court, inter alia, stated, at page 597, 17 S.Ct. at page 422: "It would certainly startle the profession to be told that such statutes contravene a constitutional requirement of the inviolability of jury trials."

As stated by the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit in Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Zane et al. (1947) 160 F.2d 731-737, Rule 49, F.R.Civ.P., was "designed to encourage and facilitate the use of the special verdict, or, in the alternative, the general verdict accompanied by the jury's answers to interrogatories as to issues of fact."

In short, the rule is designed to take some of the mystery out of general verdicts where, in case after case, neither counsel for either side nor the Court have been able to reconcile the verdict with the evidence. That was the purpose of the use of interrogatories in these cases.

The first task of the Court is to determine whether or not the Findings of Fact in the answers, given by the jury to the special interrogatories, are consistent with each other and whether one or more, if consistent with each other, are inconsistent with the general verdict fixing the total sum of damages to the plaintiffs resulting from the death of the decedent. And in doing so, Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 372 U.S. 108, 83 S.Ct. 659, 9 L.Ed.2d 618 (1963), "it is the duty of the courts to attempt to harmonize the answers, if it is possible under a fair reading of them: `Where there is a view of the case that makes the jury's answers to special interrogatories consistent, they must be resolved that way.' Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc., v. Ellerman Lines, Ltd., 369 U.S. 355, 364, 82 S.Ct. 780, 786, 7 L.Ed.2d 798. We therefore must attempt to reconcile the jury's findings, by exegesis if necessary, as in Arnold v. Panhandle & S. F. R. Co., 353 U.S. 360, 77 S.Ct. 840, 1 L.Ed. 2d 889; McVey v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 288 F.2d 53 (C.A.5th Cir.); Morris v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 187 F.2d 837 (C.A.2d Cir.) (collecting authorities), before we are free to disregard the jury's special verdict and remand the case for new trial."

The Ninth Circuit has stated it thusly in Golden North Airways v. Tanana Publishing Company (1954) 218 F.2d 612, at 618, 15 Alaska 303, where it said: "It is also the rule that if the special verdict or special findings can be reconciled with the general verdict, the court should do so."

The text of the special verdict on damages in the Nollenberger case is as follows:

"We, the Jury in the above entitled case, unanimously find as follows:
                                     QUESTIONS                          ANSWERS
                     1. Which one of the following named persons
                        viz.: William Edward Nollenberger
                         45 years of age on April 21, 1958
                         Catherine B. Nollenberger, his widow
                         age 47 on April 21, 1958; William Edward
                         Nollenberger, Jr., son, age 20 on
                         April 21, 1958; Lawrence P. Nollenberger
                         son, age 11 on April 21, 1958
                         had the shortest life expectancy?          Wm. E. Nollenberger
                                                                  _______________________
                                                                          (Name)
                     2. How many years was that life expectancy
                        on April 21, 1958?                                  25
                                                                  _______________________
                                                                  (Total number of years)
                     3. How many years was decedent's work
                        and earning expectancy from and after
                        April 21, 1958?                                   15 yrs
                                                                  _______________________
                                                                  (Total number of years)
                
                
                     4. From and after April 21, 1958, what
                        total sum of money do you find the decedent
                        would have earned during the
                        period of his work and earning expectancy
                        stated in your answer to No. 3
                        above?                                             $235,210
                                                                     _____________________
                                                                            (Total)
                     5. From and after the end of his work
                        and earning expectancy, and during
                        the remainder of his life, if any such
                        remained, what total sum of money do
                        you find decedent would have received
                        as a result of his government employment?          $100,200
                                                                     _____________________
                                                                          (Total sum)
                     6. What is the total reasonable value of
                        services susceptible of being furnished
                        by others which you find it was reasonably
                        probable that decedent would
                        have provided under my instructions
                        to you
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Brooks v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • September 15, 1967
    ... ... Co. (C.C.A. Ill.1951), 191 F.2d 302, 311. As stated in Har-Pen Truck Lines, Inc. v. Mills, supra, 278 F.2d p. 709, "Past earnings are indicative but not conclusive". The ... United States, supra; Nollenberger v. United Air Lines, Inc. (D.C.Cal.1963), 216 F.Supp. 734, 743, mod. on other grounds 9 Cir., 335 ... ...
  • Canavin v. Pacific Southwest Airlines
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 28, 1983
    ... ... (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450, 455, 20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937.) ... Easton, 184 Cal. 764, 770, 195 P. 419, Bond v. United Railroads, 159 Cal. 270, 285-286, 113 P. 366, Dickinson v. Southern ... 141, 603 P.2d 58; Williams v. E.W. Robinson Van Lines, 46 Cal.2d 14, 15-18, 291 P.2d 453; see 6 Witkin, Cal.Procedure (2d ed ... United States (Okla.1959) 269 F.2d 578, 584-585; Nollenberger v. United Air Lines, Inc. (Nev.1963) 216 F.Supp. 734; Brooks v. United ... ...
  • United Air Lines, Inc. v. Wiener
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • December 16, 1964
    ... 335 F.2d 379 (1964) ... UNITED AIR LINES, INC., Appellant, ... Janice WIENER et al. and Catherine B. Nollenberger, et al. (excluding Faith C. Paris et al.), Appellees ... UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, ... Janice WIENER et al., Appellees ... Nos. 18510-18533, 18866-18872 ... United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit ... June 24, 1964 ... Rehearing Denied September 11, 1964 ... ...
  • Pacific West Cable Co. v. City of Sacramento, Cal.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • August 13, 1987
    ... ... Civ. No. S-83-1034 MLS ... United States District Court, E.D. California ... August 13, 1987. 672 F ... Second Circuit endorsed the use of special verdicts in Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 ... See Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Zane, 160 F.2d 731, 737 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1947) ... Nollenberger v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.Supp. 734, 737 (S.D. Cal.1963) (citing ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT