Meredith v. Hardy, 77-1111
| Decision Date | 24 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1111,77-1111 |
| Citation | 554 F.2d 764 |
| Parties | 2 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 94 Judy MEREDITH and Wilmer Meredith, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Michael HARDY, and Ralph M. Hardy, d/b/a Ralph M. Hardy, Trucking, Defendants-Appellants. Summary Calendar. * United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Heber Ladner, Jr., Jackson, Miss., for defendants-appellants.
Brad Sessums, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Before COLEMAN, GODBOLD and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
This diversity suit arises out of a high-speed, rear-end collision which occurred on July 26, 1975, near Pelahatchie, Mississippi. The plaintiffs were driving west on I-20 in their pick-up truck, with an attached camper, when it was overtaken and struck by a tractor-trailer truck owned by the defendants.
At trial the defendants conceded liability and that the plaintiffs were not guilty of contributory negligence. Tried to the jury on the issue of damages alone, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs in the amount of $70,190. Mrs. Meredith received $15,000 for personal injuries and $990 for property damage. Mr. Meredith was awarded $50,000 for personal injuries and $4,200 for property damage. We affirm.
Arguing that the plaintiffs were not entitled to punitive damages, the defendants made a motion to restrict the plaintiffs' evidence. It was denied. The effect of this was the same as though the defendants had made a motion for summary judgment on that issue. Either way, the Court would have removed the issue from the trial and the jury's consideration. Although the question of liability was conceded by the defendants, they did not concede that their conduct constituted gross negligence. On the contrary, they hotly disputed it. Without a doubt, where there is a dispute over a genuine issue of fact, summary judgment is inappropriate. Trial must be afforded on the issue. Ecology Center of Louisiana, Inc. v. Coleman, 5 Cir. 1975, 515 F.2d 860.
If, after full development of the facts, the plaintiff's case fails to rise to the required level to be sent to the jury, an appropriate motion can dispose of the matter. Reeves v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, 5 Cir. 1976,532 F.2d 491, 494. This is what occurred in the instant case and the question of punitive damages never went to the jury. The defendants' position that the plaintiffs should have been precluded from even trying is without merit.
Defendants' complaint as to the admission of certain other items of evidence must likewise fail. Since Mr. Meredith himself testified to the amount and nature of his income, the prepared statement showing these items was merely corroborative and thus admissible, Edwards v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, 5 Cir. 1975, 512 F.2d 276, 294.
Likewise, no error was committed in allowing the plaintiffs to testify to the value of the destroyed truck and camper and the lost personal property. An owner is always competent to give his opinion on the value of his property. Kestenbaum v. Falstaff Brewing Corporation, 5 Cir. 1975, 514 F.2d 690, 698....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. An Easement & Right-of-way Over 6.09 Acres of Land
...; South Central Livestock Dealers, Inc. v. Security State Bank of Hedley, Tex., 614 F.2d 1056, 1061 (5th Cir.1980) ; Meredith v. Hardy, 554 F.2d 764, 765 (5th Cir.1977) ; Kestenbaum v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 514 F.2d 690, 698–99 (5th Cir.1975) ; Berkshire Mut. Ins. Co. v. Moffett, 378 F.2d......
-
Robinson v. Watts Detective Agency, Inc., s. 81-1697
...(10th Cir. 1966). Whether or not his opinion is accurate goes to the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility. Meredith v. Hardy, 554 F.2d 764, 765 (5th Cir. 1977). Cf. Ford Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc., 361 F.2d 874, 886 (1st Cir. 1966) (plaintiff's method of valuation of ......
-
U.S. v. An Article of Food Consisting of 345/50-Pound Bags, 79-3656
...567 F.2d 1277, 1279 (5th Cir. 1978); Clark v. West Chemical Products, Inc., 557 F.2d 1155, 1157 (5th Cir. 1977); Meredith v. Hardy, 554 F.2d 764, 765 (5th Cir. 1977). The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fac......
-
Shields v. Grocers Supply Co., Inc.
...Ass'n, 567 F.2d 1277, 1279 (5th Cir. 1978); Clark v. West Chemical Products, Inc., 557 F.2d 1155, 1167 (5th Cir.1977); Meredith v. Hardy, 554 F.2d 764, 765 (5th Cir.1977). The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating that there exists no genuine issue as to any materia......
-
Chapter 2 Valuation of Collateral
...is an exception for the testimony of a nonexpert owner of property regarding the value of the owner's property. See Meredith v. Hardy, 554 F.2d 764, 765 (5th Cir. 1977) (owners have been recognized as competent to testify as to value of their property); In re Whitt, 57 B.R. 206 (Bankr. S.D.......