Best v. District of Columbia
Decision Date | 05 March 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 477,477 |
Citation | 54 S.Ct. 487,291 U.S. 411,78 L.Ed. 882 |
Parties | BEST v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
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] 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.
The opening statement by plaintiff's counsel was as follows:
'That this wharf is not part of the public highway but is on private property of the District of Columbia, and 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 entitled to the benefit of all inferences that may be drawn from his counsel's statement. To warrant the court in directing a verdict for defendant upon that statement, it is not enough that the statement be lacking in definiteness, but it must clearly appear, after resolving all doubts in plaintiff's favor, that no cause of action exists. See Illinois Power & Light Corporation v. Hurley (C.C.A.) 49 F.(2d) 681, 684; Stuthman v. United States (D.C.) 67 F.(2d) 521, 523.
The controversy in this case largely turns upon a difference of view as to the inferences to be drawn from the opening statement. Thus respondent argues that there was a failure to show that 'the wharf could be seen from the public space'; that 'the child was attracted by the presence of the wharf itself, or any article or thing which may have been upon the wharf'; that 'there was any latent or hidden danger at the place' where the child met his death; that 'there was ever a prior accident to children at or near this wharf'; that 'respondent invited or permitted petitioner's intestate or other children to enter or play on its wharf.' But with respect to each of these circumstances (with a single unimportant exception) the opening statement of counsel permitted an inference in petitioner's favor. Thus his counsel stated that From this it was not inadmissible to infer that the wharf, without a fence and close to the street, with the side portion of the barrier...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bicandi v. Boise Payette Lumber Co.
... ... premises ... 9 ... Supreme Court will not review acts of district court which ... have not been assigned as error ... APPEAL ... from the District ... the part of the defendant. ( Best v. District of ... Columbia, 291 U.S. 411, 54 S.Ct. 487, 78 L.Ed. 882; ... Franks v. Southern ... ...
-
Fisher v. United States
...470, 75 L.Ed. 1054, 73 A.L.R. 1203; Reed v. Allen, 286 U.S. 191, 52 S.Ct. 532, 76 L.Ed. 1054, 81 A.L.R. 703; Best v. District of Columbia, 291 U.S. 411, 54 S.Ct. 487, 78 L.Ed. 882. It has also, on occasion, settled issues involving the interpretation of provisions of the District of Columbi......
-
Wilkey v. State ex rel. Smith, 6 Div. 603.
...policy, or where it clearly appears, after resolving all doubt in plaintiff's favor, no cause of action is shown to exist. For example, in Best, Administrator, v. District Columbia, 291 U.S. 411, 54 S.Ct. 487, 78 L.Ed. 882, the verdict was directed in defendant's favor upon the ground that ......
-
Alexander v. Jennings
...374, 375 and 382. The well established rule governing such procedure is stated in the leading case of Best v. District of Columbia, 291 U.S. 411, 54 S.Ct. 487, 78 L.Ed. 882, although in that case the Supreme Court of the United States held that the trial court should not have direct a verdi......
-
Pretrial discovery
...Defendant be given a full opportunity to assist the jurors in understanding the evidence presented. See Best v. District of Columbia , 291 U.S. 411, 415 (1934) (the purpose of an opening statement is to assist the jury in understanding the evidence to be presented); accord United States v. ......
-
Death Penalty Law - Therese Michelle Day
...(alteration in original) (quoting Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 10.2). 107. Id. at 766, 670 S.E.2d at 396 (quoting Best v. District of Columbia, 291 U.S. 411, 415 (1934)); see also Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 879, 311 S.E.2d 161, 164 (1984). 108. O'Kelley, 284 Ga. at 766, 670 S.E.2d at 397. 109. ......
-
Opening Statement and Closing Argument
...accordingly. Be ready to object to something said by your adversary. There are very few times you will 3 Best v. District of Columbia , 291 U.S. 411, 54 S. Ct. 487, 78 L. Ed. 882 (1934). (Rev. 6, 6/10) §56.1 BUILDING TRIAL NOTEBOOKS 56-4 make an objection, even if your adversary’s statement......