Atlantic Tubing & Rubber Co. v. International Engraving Co.
| Decision Date | 13 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--1014,75--1014 |
| Citation | 528 F.2d 1272 |
| Parties | ATLANTIC TUBING & RUBBER COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL ENGRAVING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
George M. Vetter, Jr., Providence, R.I., with whom Frank T. Barber, III, Lecomte, Shea & Dangora, Boston, Mass., and Hinckley, Allen, Salisbury & Parsons, Providence, R.I., were on brief, for plaintiff-appellant.
Ralph J. Gonnella, Providence, R.I., with whom Thomas C. Angelone and Hodosh, Spinella, Hodosh & Angelone, Providence, R.I., were on brief, for defendant-appellee.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, McENTEE, Circuit Judge, and THOMSEN, Senior District Judge. *
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to a general verdict for defendant at the second trial of this case. The first ended in a mistrial because the district judge concluded that the answers to questions submitted to the jury pursuant to Rule 49(a), F.R.Civ.P., were inconsistent with respect to certain issues. Plaintiff argues that the district judge erred in not entering a judgment for plaintiff at the first trial, and in his instructions to the jury at the second trial.
In 1965 plaintiff ordered from defendant an embossing roll, a cylinder, to be used in the process of forming soft plastic into sheets. Plaintiff specified that the ends of the embossing roll be of one-piece construction, i.e., that the ends of the cylinder (the 'heads') and the posts which jut out from the heads (the 'journals') be made from a single piece of steel, as shown in Figure 1. Defendant changed the design of each head and 'shrink fit' and a weld, 1 as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
The rolls are used under various temperatures and pressures; the roll involved in this case had a smooth surface, which indicated that it would probably be used at lower temperatures and pressures than rolls with engraved surfaces. On March 25, 1972, while the roll was being used in a normal manner, one journal and head separated from each other sufficiently to allow a flammable coolant to leak out, vaporize and ignite, causing considerable damage to plaintiff's property.
At the first trial plaintiff contended that the separation of the head from the journal was caused either by an improperly designed shrink fit or an improperly manufactured shrink fit. The complaint included a count based on a strict liability theory 2 as well as a count based on alleged negligence in design and manufacture. Defendant offered evidence (which was not conceded but was not contradicted by plaintiff) that the journals on the roll at the time of the accident were longer than the journals on the roll at the time it was delivered to plaintiff by defendant, and therefore must have been replaced by plaintiff or someone on its behalf. Such a replacement would have necessitated the destruction of the original shrink fit and weld, relieving defendant of any liability.
After the close of the evidence at the first trial, the district judge submitted eighteen written questions to the jury under Rule 49(a). 3 The jury answered the questions, but was not discharged, because no question with respect to the amount of damages had been submitted to it.
The jury's answers justified the judge in ruling that defendant was not liable under a strict liability theory. Plaintiff does not challenge that ruling; it argues that the answers required the entry of a judgment for plaintiff on the issue of design negligence. After considering the answers, however, the district judge believed that the answers to the questions bearing on the issues of liability for design negligence and manufacturing negligence were inconsistent or ambiguous. After conferring with counsel, the judge decided that additional questions should be submitted to the jury to clarify their previous findings.
Accordingly, the judge prepared and submitted additional questions to the jury, with an appropriate explanation and instructions. 4 The jury answered the questions and appended a note to the judge. The result was confusion worse confounded. The judge properly concluded that the answers to the questions dealing with negligent design were inconsistent and precluded entry of a judgment in favor of either party on the negligence issues. 5 He therefore ordered a new trial 'limited to the issues of negligence.'
Such a trial was held and resulted in a general verdict for defendant. No interrogatories were requested or submitted at that trial.
Plaintiff argues: (1) that the answers to the first set of questions submitted to the jury were consistent and required the entry of a judgment for plaintiff; and (2) that the district judge did not have the power under Rule 49(a) or otherwise to submit a second set of questions to the jury. Plaintiff does not deny that if the answers to the second set of questions may be considered, a new trial was properly ordered.
A preliminary issue to consider is the scope of appellate review over the district court's determination that the jury's responses were 'ambiguous, if not inconsistent.' Plaintiff suggests that this court must exercise an independent judgment on the question of the consistency or unambiguous character of the jury's answers to the interrogatories, and, if we believe that the jury's responses are not irreconcilably inconsistent, we must reverse and order the district court to enter a judgment for plaintiff. In support of this contention, plaintiff relies upon language in Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores v. Ellerman Lines, 369 U.S. 355, 364, 82 S.Ct. 780, 7 L.Ed.2d 798 (1962), and Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 372 U.S. 108, 119, 83 S.Ct. 659, 9 L.Ed.2d 618 (1963), to the effect that it is the duty of the federal courts to attempt to harmonize the jury's answers to the interrogatories, if that is possible under a fair reading of them. We recognize, as did the district court, the force of this language, but we do not believe it supports the proposition that plaintiff urges. Gallick and Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores were both cases in which an intermediate appellate court had reversed a trial court's judgment on the ground that the jury's responses to the interrogatories were inconsistent. Both cases thus arose in a context in which an appellate court disagreed with a trial court's determination that the jury's responses should be accepted. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that an appellate court must affirm if there is a view of the case that makes the jury's answers to the interrogatories consistent.
Although a trial court must be sensitive to the principles of Gallick and Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, it has considerable discretion in applying them, and its refusal to enter judgment on the basis of a jury's answers to a set of interrogatories should not be reversed simply because an appellate court concludes that it is possible to reconcile the jury's responses. A federal trial court has broad discretion to refuse to accept a general verdict and to order a new trial when it believes that the ends of justice so require. See Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Yeatts, 122 F.2d 350, 354 (4 Cir. 1941) (Parker, C.J.); F.R.Civ.P. 59. This discretion encompasses the power to refuse to accept a jury's answers to special interrogatories. Hence, this court should reverse only if we find that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to enter a judgment for plaintiff.
Applying these principles to the case at bar, we cannot say that the district court committed reversible error in refusing to enter a judgment based upon the jury's initial answers to the interrogatories. The jury's answers were very difficult to reconcile. In question seven, the jury found that the embossing roll was not defectively designed--that is, that if properly manufactured it was not of a design that was unreasonably dangerous to the plaintiff--but in question thirteen the jury found that the defendant was negligent in modifying the design from one-piece to two-piece construction without knowing the specific operating data. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp.
...if there is a view of the case that makes the jury's answers to the interrogatories consistent." Atlantic Tubing & Rubber Co. v. International Engraving Co., 528 F.2d 1272, 1276 (1st Cir. 1976). This duty is drawn, at least in part, from the Seventh "Where there is a view of the case that m......
-
Reilly v. US
...Main Realty Co. v. Blackstone Valley Gas & Electric Co., 59 R.I. 29, 50, 193 A. 879 (1937); see also Atlantic Tubing & Rubber Co. v. Int'l Engraving Co., 528 F.2d 1272, 1277 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 60, 50 L.Ed.2d 77 (1976). And I quite agree with the defense that su......
-
Emerson v. Magendantz
...be proven to have been reasonably foreseeable and proximately caused by the tortfeasor's negligence. Atlantic Tubing & Rubber Co. v. International Engraving Co., 528 F.2d 1272 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 60, 50 L.Ed.2d 77 (1976); Hueston v. Narragansett Tennis Club, Inc......
-
Solimene v. B. Grauel & Co., K.G.
...nom. Kem Mfg. Co. v. Drackett Prods. Co., 445 U.S. 929, 100 S.Ct. 1318, 63 L.Ed.2d 763 (1980). Cf. Atlantic Tubing & Rubber Co. v. International Engraving Co., 528 F.2d 1272, 1276 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 817 (1976). See 9 C.A. Wright & A.R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure ......