Best v. District of Columbia, No. 477

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHUGHES
Citation54 S.Ct. 487,291 U.S. 411,78 L.Ed. 882
PartiesBEST v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Decision Date05 March 1934
Docket NumberNo. 477

291 U.S. 411
54 S.Ct. 487
78 L.Ed. 882
BEST

v.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

No. 477.
Argued Feb. 9, 1934.
Decided March 5, 1934.

Page 412

Messrs. John H. Burnett and James A. O'Shea, both of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. Robert E. Lynch, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.

[Argument of Counsel from page 412-413 intentionally omitted]

Page 413

Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner's intestate, a child 5 years of age, while playing on a wharf belonging to the District of Columbia, fell through a hole in the wharf and was drowned. This action was for damages for the alleged negligence of the District. After a jury had been impaneled, an opening statement was made by plaintiff's counsel, and thereupon the court, on motion of the defendant and without taking testimony, directed a verdict in defendant's favor upon the ground that no cause of action had been stated. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment (62 App.D.C. 271, 66 F.(2d) 797), and this Court granted certiorari.

Page 414

The opening statement by plaintiff's counsel was as follows:

'This is a case against the District of Columbia filed by Mr. Best as administrator for the estate of his son. The facts that we will show you, briefly, are these, that Mr. Best's son was a child of five years of age and that on the day in question he and other children were playing down at a wharf close to where the Norfolk boats leave for Norfolk, and this wharf was operated and controlled by the District of Columbia; that they had there on this wharf some boards which extended over the water and they had in the wharf, as several witnesses will testify, from ten to thirteen holes of various and varying sizes; that one of the holes was quite large, approximately 3 feet in diameter; that this place was not fenced off; that it did have some sort of a barrier close to the street. There was no sidewalk, but the side portion was down and that the children went in and out at their pleasure, and that this son of Mr. Best went in there on this morning and while in there fell through one of the holes in this wharf.

'That there was no one that at the time to keep the children away, and that the watchman who was stationed arrived some time after this occurrence; that the children used this place to play on and play in; and that the District having maintained it in a condition such that it was dangerous to the life and limb of these children it is responsible for the child having been attracted there, going in and falling through this hole. Of course the child died, having been drowned; and the damages that the plaintiff has suffered as representing the estate of the child will be determined by you in your verdict if you are convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that we have established our case.

'That this wharf is not part of the public highway but is on private property of the District of Columbia, and

Page 415

is not a place to which the public is admitted, but is a place where the boats dock and unload sand which is taken out and used by the District.'

There is no question as to the power of the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendant upon the opening statement of plaintiff's counsel where that statement establishes that the plaintiff has no right to recover. The power of the court to act upon facts conceded by counsel is as plain as its power to act upon evidence produced. Oscanyan v. Arms Company, 103 U.S. 261, 263, 26 L.Ed. 539. The exercise of this power in a proper case is not only not objectionable, but is convenient in saving time and expense by shortening trials. Liverpool, N.Y. & P. Staeamship Co. v. Commissioners, 113 U.S. 33, 37, 5 S.Ct. 352, 28 L.Ed. 899. But the power is not properly exercised if the opening statement leaves doubt as to the facts or permits conflicting inferences. Where uncertainty arises either from a conflict of testimony or because the facts being undisputed, fair-minded men may honestly draw different conclusions from them, the question is not one of law, but of fact to be settled by the jury. Richmond & Danville Railroad Co. v. Powers, 149 U.S. 43, 45, 13 S.Ct. 748, 37 L.Ed. 642; Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Harvey, 228 U.S. 319, 324, 33 S.Ct. 518, 57 L.Ed. 852; Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U.S. 90, 94, 50 S.Ct. 231, 74 L.Ed. 720. The opening statement of counsel is ordinarily intended to do no more than to inform the jury in a general way of the nature of the action and defense so that they may better be prepared to understand the evidence. 'If a doubt exists,' said the Court in the Oscanyan Case, supra, 'as to the statement of counsel, the court will withhold its directions, as where the evidence is conflicting, and leave the matter to the determination of the jury.' Plaintiff is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
157 practice notes
  • Nunez v. Superior Oil Co., No. 76-3340
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • May 12, 1978
    ...from them, the question is not one of law, but of fact to be Page 1127 settled by the jury." Best v. District of Columbia, 1934, 291 U.S. 411, 415, 54 S.Ct. 487, 489, 78 L.Ed. 882; see also Lowe v. Pate Stevedoring Co., supra ; Callon Petroleum Co. v. Big Chief Drilling Co., 5 Cir. 197......
  • Lough v. Brunswick Corp., Nos. 95-1266
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • January 2, 1997
    ...of wisdom and judgment when weighing and balancing the evidence is the role of the trier of fact. See Best v. District of Columbia, 291 U.S. 411, 415, 54 S.Ct. 487, 489, 78 L.Ed. 882 (1934) ("Where uncertainty arises either from a conflict of testimony or because, the facts being undis......
  • Hildebrand v. Board of Trustees of Michigan State University, No. 77-1435
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • September 17, 1979
    ...McCofferty, 169 F.2d 1, 3 (6th Cir.), Cert. denied, 335 U.S. 861, 69 S.Ct. 136, 93 L.Ed. 407 (1948). 12 See Best v. District of Columbia, 291 U.S. 411, 415, 54 S.Ct. 487, 78 L.Ed. 882 (1934); Peterson v. Peterson, 400 F.2d 336 (8th Cir. 1968). Cf. Moran v. Raymond Corp., 484 F.2d 1008, 1010......
  • Wilkey v. State ex rel. Smith, 6 Div. 603.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • December 21, 1939
    ...the express purpose of dispensing with formal proof of a fact at the trial.' * *" In Best, Administrator, v. District of Columbia, 291 U.S. 411, 54 S.Ct. 487, 489, 78 L.Ed. 882, the Federal Rule is thus stated: "The power of the court to act upon facts conceded by counsel is as pl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
157 cases
  • Nunez v. Superior Oil Co., No. 76-3340
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • May 12, 1978
    ...from them, the question is not one of law, but of fact to be Page 1127 settled by the jury." Best v. District of Columbia, 1934, 291 U.S. 411, 415, 54 S.Ct. 487, 489, 78 L.Ed. 882; see also Lowe v. Pate Stevedoring Co., supra ; Callon Petroleum Co. v. Big Chief Drilling Co., 5 Cir. 1977, 54......
  • Lough v. Brunswick Corp., Nos. 95-1266
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • January 2, 1997
    ...of wisdom and judgment when weighing and balancing the evidence is the role of the trier of fact. See Best v. District of Columbia, 291 U.S. 411, 415, 54 S.Ct. 487, 489, 78 L.Ed. 882 (1934) ("Where uncertainty arises either from a conflict of testimony or because, the facts being undisputed......
  • Hildebrand v. Board of Trustees of Michigan State University, No. 77-1435
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • September 17, 1979
    ...McCofferty, 169 F.2d 1, 3 (6th Cir.), Cert. denied, 335 U.S. 861, 69 S.Ct. 136, 93 L.Ed. 407 (1948). 12 See Best v. District of Columbia, 291 U.S. 411, 415, 54 S.Ct. 487, 78 L.Ed. 882 (1934); Peterson v. Peterson, 400 F.2d 336 (8th Cir. 1968). Cf. Moran v. Raymond Corp., 484 F.2d 1008, 1010......
  • Wilkey v. State ex rel. Smith, 6 Div. 603.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • December 21, 1939
    ...for the express purpose of dispensing with formal proof of a fact at the trial.' * *" In Best, Administrator, v. District of Columbia, 291 U.S. 411, 54 S.Ct. 487, 489, 78 L.Ed. 882, the Federal Rule is thus stated: "The power of the court to act upon facts conceded by counsel is as plain as......
  • 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