Fuselier v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 02 August 1957 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 4446. |
| Citation | 155 F. Supp. 75 |
| Parties | Ludwic FUSELIER v. Guy A. THOMPSON, Trustee and/or Receiver, New Orleans, Texas and Mexico Railway Company, and/or Guy A. Thompson, Trustee and/or Receiver of Missouri Pacific Railroad Company. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
J. Nilas Young, Eunice, La., L. O. Fusilier, Ville Platte, La., for plaintiff.
Edward Dubuisson, Opelousas, La., Milling, Saal, Saunders, Benson & Woodward, New Orleans, La., for defendant.
Fuselier brought this action against the railroad for serious personal injuries sustained when a car owned by a Mr. Hudson and operated by Verdie Mae Vidrine crashed into a gondola railroad car. The accident occurred shortly after midnight on February 22, 1953, at a railroad crossing in Eunice, Louisiana. The crossing was an elevated one and there were no lights or bells of any kind to warn the public of the presence of the crossing on this heavily traveled thoroughfare. At the time of the accident, the railroad car was stationary and completely blocked the crossing. Train personnel were available but there were no lights, lamps or bells of any kind being used to warn of the blocked crossing. Fuselier was a guest in the car.
The case was tried on its merits and submitted to the jury for a general verdict. The court also submitted two special issues, as follows to-wit:
(1) Was the defendant railroad guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of the accident involved in this suit?
(2) Was the plaintiff Ludwic Fuselier, guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of the accident?
The jury returned a general verdict for the plaintiff. They also answered both special issues in the affirmative. The answer to Interrogatory No. 2 was completely inconsistent with the general verdict. The Court, exercising its discretion, ordered a new trial. Rule 49(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.
At the close of plaintiff's case and all of the evidence, defendant filed motions for directed verdicts. Acting under Rule 50(b), 28 U.S.C.A., the Court denied the motions and submitted the issues of negligence, proximate cause and contributory negligence to the jury. Subsequent to the trial and the verdict, defendant filed timely motions requesting that the Court dismiss plaintiff's suit in accordance with defendant's motions for directed verdicts.
The question is one of law only: whether there is evidence which, if believed, would authorize a verdict against defendant. Because there would have been ample justification for the following findings of fact based on substantial evidence and inferences therefrom:
(1) That the crossing where the accident occurred was more than ordinarily hazardous;
(2) That defendant failed to provide adequate warning to the traveling public under the prevailing conditions that existed at this crossing, and that this failure was a proximate cause of the accident;
(3) That plaintiff was not guilty of such independent negligence as would bar his recovery;1 the motions for directed verdicts and for a judgment notwithstanding the order for a new trial are denied.
Citing Golden North Airways v. Tanana Publishing Company, 9 Cir., 1955, 218 F.2d 612; and Wayne v. New York Life Insurance Company, 9 Cir., 1942, 132 F.2d 28, defendant vigorously urges that under Rule 49(b) the Court has no alternative but to direct the entry of a judgment in accordance with the answers to the special interrogatories. By brief he asserts:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turchio v. D/S A/S Den Norske Africa, s. 152 and 40
...are not an infrequent occurrence. See, e.g., McCandless v. L. G. DeFelice & Son, 144 F.Supp. 462 (W.D.Pa.1956); Fuselier v. Thompson, 155 F.Supp. 75 (W.D.La.1957). In this typical tripartite longshoreman personal injury suit against a shipowner, which in turn impleaded plaintiff's employer-......