Butler v. General Motors Corporation
| Decision Date | 06 July 1956 |
| Docket Number | 3918,3896,Civ. A. No. 3917,3809. |
| Citation | 143 F. Supp. 461 |
| Parties | Herbert BUTLER, James Wilmoll, Richard Martelli, Bruce Roys, William Shiland, Harold Frederickson, Bruno Kapner, Howard J. Greenslet, Anson W. Kipp and Alvah Webster, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
Harold J. Hughes, Albany, N. Y., for plaintiffs Herbert Butler, James Wilmoll, Richard Martelli, Bruce Roys, William Shiland, Harold Frederickson and Bruno Kapner.
John H. Spain, Troy, N. Y., for plaintiffs Anson W. Kipp and Alvah Webster.
Murphy, Aldrich, Guy, Broderick & Simon, Troy, N. Y., for plaintiff Howard J. Greenslet. Morris Simon, Troy, N. Y., of counsel.
Carter & Conboy, Albany, N. Y., for defendant M. J. Conboy, John W. Cebula, Albany, N. Y., of counsel.
These actions involving ten individual plaintiffs against the single corporate defendant were tried together before the court and jury. Verdicts totalling $350,000 were returned in favor of the plaintiffs, ranging from $2,500 for four of the plaintiffs to the sum of $200,000 for the plaintiff Greenslet. Motions made by the defendant corporation for dismissal and directed verdicts were reserved upon at the end of the evidence, and upon the return of the verdicts similar motions were renewed with the alternative motion for a new trial, particularly upon the motions and objections made during the trial and the excessiveness of four of the verdicts. In this last respect, the defendant challenges only as grossly excessive the verdict of $200,000 for Greenslet, the $50,000 verdict for Webster, and the $30,000 verdicts for Frederickson and Kipp.
The actions were based upon the famed doctrine of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050, L.R.A. 1916F, 696, and each action had the common thread of responsibility and liability based upon the principles of that authority. Much has been written on the MacPherson doctrine and I have no intention to paint the lily further in this practical situation of disposition of legal motions in reference to a jury trial and jury verdicts. An interesting and most comprehensive article on the subject by Robert Martin Davis with a review of all the New York authorities has been reprinted from the Fordham Law Review, Summer 1955, and it refers to a standard treatise on the subject by Professor Bohlen, 45 L.Q.Rev. 343, 361 (1929). The doctrine has recently met with the approval of the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Fredericks v. American Export Lines, 2 Cir., 227 F.2d 450; Dimas v. Lehigh Val. Railroad Co., 2 Cir., 234 F. 2d 151. The most recent decision in New York by the Court of Appeals which emphasizes and clarifies the approach to be taken and the test to be used as to the sufficiency of evidence in situations of this kind is Swensson v. New York, Albany Despatch Co., Inc., 1956, 309 N.Y. 497, 131 N.E.2d 902.
From the viewpoint of these authorities, and particularly the writing in the Swensson case, and from the established position that the evidence must be viewed in the most favorable light for the plaintiffs, I deny the motions for directed verdicts in each of the actions.
The trial became as usual, to a great extent, "a battle of the experts". It is the same close question as always present because there is no pinpointing by the plaintiffs as to negligence by the defendant corporation in the manufacture and assembly of the stud or bolt, nut and washer which they claimed to be defective and the cause of the unfortunate accident. We do have for the plaintiffs the testimony of Douttiel, an automobile man in various capacities for years, who testified that this particular part of the steering assembly was loose, the stud was bent, and the thread of the stud or bolt and nut were damaged and burnished in certain areas after the accident. Nash, the professor in metallurgy, gave differences in hardness from the standards of the defendant company. It must be kept in mind that the experts for the defendant corporation admitted the damage to certain portions of the parts, but the main contention as stated by Harris apparently was that such damage to the bolt and thread was caused by the force of the accident. This conflict, in my judgment, seems peculiarly for a jury and may allow the inference of lack of ordinary care.
It would be difficult for me in my review of the evidence to conclude that "by no rational process" could the jury have based a finding in favor of the plaintiffs on the evidence here. Swensson v. New York, Albany Despatch Co., Inc., supra, 309 N.Y. at page 505, 131 N.E.2d 902; citing Blum v. Fresh Grown Preserve Corp., 292 N.Y. 241, 245-246, 54 N.E.2d 809; Stein v. Palisi Taxi, 308 N.Y. 293, 296, 125 N.E.2d 575.
Circumstantial evidence from which reasonable inferences may be drawn is sufficient, except here we have also the positive testimony of Hanson, the driver of the truck, as to the erratic behavior of the steering wheel and front wheels just prior to the accident which he said made the truck uncontrollable.
As Mr. Justice Black recently wrote in Schulz v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 350 U.S. 523, 76 S.Ct. 608, 610, (although a Jones Act case, the discussion contains much of the legal standards upon which the jury was instructed in these actions):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vanity Fair Mills v. Cusick
... ... A general statement of the clean hands doctrine is found in a case relied on by ... Buromin Co. v. National Aluminate Corporation, D.C. D.Del.1947, 70 F.Supp. 214, was a suit in 143 F. Supp. 456 which ... ...
-
Butler v. General Motors Corporation
...presented for the jury. No error was committed in denying the motion for a directed verdict. Judge Foley's able opinion is reported in 143 F.Supp. 461. That opinion also discusses the alleged errors in the conduct of the trial. Little need be added. As to the claim that the defendant was de......