Herzig v. Swift & Co.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 199.,199. |
| Citation | 154 F.2d 64 |
| Parties | HERZIG v. SWIFT & CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Morris Kaplan, of New York City, and Herman E. Hoberman, of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Samuel J. Sussman, of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
George J. Stacy, of New York City (George J. Stacy and Joseph Kane, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Before L. HAND, CHASE and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied May 20, 1946. See 66 S.Ct. 1122.
This appeal is from a judgment for the plaintiff on the verdict of a jury after a trial on the merits upon the remand following our reversal of a former judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissing the complaint. Herzig v. Swift & Co., 2 Cir., 146 F.2d 444.
Relying on diversity as the ground of federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff as administratrix of the estate of Herman Weintraub brought the suit to recover damages under Florida law, F.S.A. § 768.01 et seq., for his death on January 23, 1941 in an automobile accident in Florida alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the driver of a truck owned by the defendant and then being operated in the business of the defendant on a Florida highway about 15 miles south of Jacksonville.
The evidence in behalf of the plaintiff as to the cause of the accident is found in the testimony of a Mrs. Youngs who was driving her automobile, no one but her son five years old being with her, south on the highway which was a straight road for some two miles in each direction from the place of the accident and was about 20 feet wide with an asphalt surface divided at the center by a yellow line. She testified that she was traveling about 30 miles an hour close to the right side of the road in the southbound lane and had been followed for some time by the defendant's truck being driven at about the same speed some 40 feet behind her and somewhat closer to the center line. It was at about half past seven in the morning in clear weather when the defendant's truck pulled up on her left-hand side and across the center line somewhat into the northbound lane in an attempt to overtake and pass her. Before the truck could pass her car but when it had drawn up alongside, it collided with an automobile in the northbound lane being driven by the decedent toward the north. Both that automobile and the truck were overturned by the force of the collision and the decedent was killed. Mrs. Youngs didn't remember having noticed the northbound car approaching until she saw it just before the accident but the circumstances make it clear that the automobile must have been in plain sight of the driver of the truck at least as soon as he pulled out to his left to pass Mrs. Youngs' car, if not before. Though there was some conflict in the evidence as to just what happened, the testimony of Mrs. Youngs was enough to take the case to the jury and to justify...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Pac. Co. v. Guthrie
...404, 166 F.2d 213, Reid v. Nelson, 5 Cir., 154 F.2d 724, Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Green, 8 Cir., 164 F.2d 55, Herzig v. Swift & Co., 2 Cir., 154 F.2d 64. 15 Cobb v. Lepisto, supra, prior to the decision in Virginian Ry. Co. v. Armentrout, supra, has been stated to stand alone. See Miller ......
-
Southern Pac. Co. v. Guthrie
...404, 166 F.2d 213; Reid v. Nelson, 5 Cir., 154 F.2d 724; Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Green, 8 Cir., 164 F.2d 55; Herzig v. Swift & Co., 2 Cir., 154 F.2d 64. 3 In the Department of Water and Power case, supra, the court found the verdict not to be "grossly 4 "That it might be desirable to giv......
-
Wetherbee v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. Co., 10205.
...concurs in the result. 1 Bissonette v. National Biscuit Co., 1 Cir., 100 F.2d 1003; Powers v. Wilson, 1 Cir., 110 F.2d 960; Herzig v. Swift & Co., 2 Cir., 154 F.2d 64; Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n v. Schenck, 2 Cir., 98 F. 925; Reid v. Nelson, 5 Cir., 154 F.2d 724; Consumers Power Co. v.......
-
English v. United States
...prosecution; all other actions shall and may be maintained in the name of the representatives of the deceased." 4 Herzig v. Swift & Company, 2 Cir., 154 F.2d 64; Callison v. Brake, 5 Cir., 129 F. 196; Florida Central & R. R. Company v. Sullivan, 5 Cir., 120 F. 799, 61 L.R.A. 410; Brown v. U......