Cundiff v. Washburn, 16445.
| Decision Date | 29 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 16445.,16445. |
| Citation | 393 F.2d 505 |
| Parties | Thomas D. CUNDIFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Virginia Lee WASHBURN, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Don G. Brooks, Terre Haute, Ind., for plaintiff-appellant, Berry, Kincade & Miller, Terre Haute, Ind., of counsel.
Thomas C. Stifler, III, Stifler & Snyder, Danville, Ill., for defendant-appellee.
Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and CASTLE and KILEY, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-appellant Thomas D. Cundiff appeals from judgment entered against him in a personal injury diversity action on May 4, 1967 and from an order denying his motion for new trial entered June 13, 1967. The case was tried to a jury.
The occurrence that gave rise to this litigation was an intersection collision between cars driven by appellant and appellee Virginia Lee Washburn in North Terre Haute, Indiana on November 10, 1963. The action was brought in federal district court in Illinois, the state of appellee's residence.
The sole trial error asserted in the motion for new trial and on appeal is the alleged inconsistency between the general verdict and the jury's answer to a special interrogatory. The jury returned a verdict against appellant on his claim and against appellee on her counterclaim. It answered "no" to the special interrogatory: "Was the Plaintiff, Thomas D. Cundiff, guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to cause the occurrence in question?"
Appellant contends that the general verdict against him is inconsistent with the special finding that he was not guilty of negligence proximately contributing to the collision and resultant injuries. He maintains that under Indiana law the collision could not have been a pure accident, that one of the parties must have been negligent, and that since the jury specially found that he was not, appellee must have been the negligent party.
Appellee contends that appellant waived the right to raise the alleged inconsistency on his motion for new trial or on appeal.
After return of the verdict, the trial court addressed counsel, stating: Appellant's two attorneys, after conferring, answered in the negative.
Special interrogatories are governed by Rule 49 F.R.C.P., 28 U.S.C.A., which provides in part:
"(b) * * * When the answers to special interrogatories are consistent with each other but one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment may be entered pursuant to Rule 58 in accordance with the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict, or the court may return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or may order a new trial."
Rule 49(b) gives the trial court discretion to remedy such inconsistencies by reconciling the general verdict with the special findings, resubmitting the verdict and the findings to the jury or ordering a new trial. The question that appellee raises is whether the party who is disenchanted with the general verdict but does not move for resubmission thereby waives the right to have the inconsistency, if any, remedied by a new trial.
We have found no federal cases precisely on point, and none has been cited to us. However, several recent cases are closely analogous. In Kirkendoll v. Neustrom,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Management v. Taha
...Corp., 878 F.2d 144, 146 (4th Cir.1989); McIsaac v. Didriksen Fishing Corp., 809 F.2d 129, 134 (1st Cir.1987); Cundiff v. Washburn, 393 F.2d 505, 507 (7th Cir.1968). Cf. Bell v. Mickelsen, 710 F.2d 611, 616 (10th Cir. 1983); Charles Stores, Inc. v. Aetna Insurance Co., 490 F.2d 64, 67-68 (5......
-
Downs v. Gulf & Western Mfg. Co., Inc.
...of the inconsistent special verdicts among the court and the parties when the jury returned its answers. By comparison, in Cundiff v. Washburn, supra, at 506, the court expressly pointed out a discrepancy and solicited both counsels' response, and in Skillin, the appellant's counsel distinc......
-
Strauss v. Stratojac Corp.
...several of these courts have relied on our previous holdings in Barnes v. Brown, 430 F.2d 578, 580 (7th Cir.1970) and Cundiff v. Washburn, 393 F.2d 505, 507 (7th Cir.1968). See, e.g., Diamond Shamrock, 791 F.2d at 1422-23; Skillin, 643 F.2d at 20. In both Barnes and Cundiff, the answers to ......
-
Kosmynka v. Polaris Industries, Inc.
...That done, a lawyer waives nothing by urging the court to adopt the course that best favors that lawyer's client. Cf. Cundiff v. Washburn, 393 F.2d 505, 507 (7th Cir.1968) ("Our interpretation of Rule 49(b), in the absence of objection by counsel, leaves to the trial court alone the discret......