Bigart v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
| Decision Date | 13 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | Docket 30209.,No. 297,297 |
| Parties | Gareth A. BIGART, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Robert H. Erdmann, Burlington, Vt. (Wick, Dinse & Allen, Burlington, Vt., on the brief), for defendant-appellant.
John B. Harte, Bennington, Vt. (Chapman & MacBride, Brattleboro, Vt., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before SMITH, KAUFMAN and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
At the argument of the motion, plaintiff's attorney apparently merely realleged his information that an elevator operator had overheard a juror discuss the case before the verdict was rendered. Thereafter, Judge Gibson sua sponte interrogated an elevator operator who worked in the federal building. The attorneys for the parties were not present during the interrogation. The judge subsequently set aside the verdict and granted a new trial. The order states that one Fred Watson, while operating the elevator during one of the trial days, and before the case went to the jury, "overhead one of the male jurors * * * say to another male juror that (in substance) the plaintiff shouldn't get a nickel as he was entirely to blame, and that he (the plaintiff) wouldn't get anything if he (the juror) could help it." The order further stated that, in Judge Gibson's opinion, the issue of liability in this case was close and the fact that a juror had prejudged the case and communicated this fact to another juror may have had a prejudicial effect on the jury's determinations. Goodyear took this appeal from the order, and in its brief suggests the possibility that we issue a prerogative writ if an appeal does not lie.
As we have long held, an order setting aside a verdict and judgment and granting a new trial is ordinarily not appealable; such an order is plainly not final. Dry Dock, E. B. & B. R. R. v. Petkunas, 261 F. 988 (2d Cir. 1919); Barbarino v. Stanhope S. S. Co., 150 F.2d 54 (2d Cir. 1945) (per curiam)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Sam Goody, Inc., s. 597
...ends with a contrary result, the order granting the new trial may then be reviewed and set aside. Bigart v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 361 F.2d 317, 318 (2d Cir. 1966) (per curiam); Damanti v. A/S Inger, 314 F.2d 395, 398 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 834, 84 S.Ct. 46, 11 L.Ed.2d 64 (1......
-
Daiflon, Inc. v. Bohanon
...Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers, 355 F.2d 70 (6th Cir. 1966); Bigart v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 361 F.2d 317 (2d Cir. 1966).16 General Motors Corp. v. Lord, supra, 488 F.2d at 1099; Benton Harbor Malleable Industries v. International Union, etc., su......
-
Chappell & Co. v. Frankel
...there is a genuine issue as to a material fact can hardly satisfy this "extraordinary circumstances" test. Cf. Bigart v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 361 F.2d 317 (2 Cir. 1966). Of course, in some cases we can review interlocutory denials of summary judgment motions under the Interlocutory A......
-
Parkinson v. April Industries, Inc.
...district court. See Compagnie Nationale Air France v. Port of New York Authority, 427 F.2d 951 (2 Cir. 1970); Bigart v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 361 F.2d 317 (2 Cir. 1966); Chappell & Co. v. Frankel, 367 F.2d 197 (2 Cir. 1966).4 The motion for class determination must be made within ......