Morrison v. Ted Wilkerson, Inc.
Decision Date | 24 August 1971 |
Docket Number | 18886-3.,Civ. A. No. 18618-3 |
Citation | 343 F. Supp. 1319 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Parties | William MORRISON et ux., Plaintiffs, v. TED WILKERSON, INC., Defendant. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Alvin D. Shapiro, John M. Edgar, Stinson, Mag, Thomson, McEvers & Fizzell, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiffs.
Reed O. Gentry, Rogers, Field, Gentry, Benjamin & Robertson, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S ALTERNATIVE MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT AND FOR NEW TRIAL
These are consolidated actions tried simultaneously before a jury under the diversity statute, Section 1332, Title 28, United States Code, in which plaintiff William Morrison sought damages for injuries suffered by him as the result of an accident on July 15, 1970, allegedly caused by defendant's "negligently and carelessly" blocking Interstate Route No. 35 in Clay County, Missouri, while performing road construction. In Civil Action No. 18886-3, Judith K. Morrison asserted her claim for damages including her loss of consortium claim against defendant. The two actions were consolidated for trial and the trial resulted in a jury verdict on March 15, 1971, for William Morrison in Civil Action No. 18618-3 in the sum of $40,000 and for Judith K. Morrison in Civil Action No. 18886-3 in the sum of $20,000.
On March 25, 1971, defendant filed motions "to set aside verdicts and judgments and to enter judgments for defendant on Count I in accordance with defendant's motion for directed verdict" and a motion for new trial in both causes.
In support of the motion for judgment in Count I (the negligence claim of Plaintiff William Morrison), defendant states as follows:
None of the contentions numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 can be sustained. There was ample evidence admitted during the trial of this cause from which the jury could have concluded, as they did, that defendant failed to use reasonable care in maintaining adequate warning signals while performing construction work on a public highway. See Ferguson v. Ben M. Hogan Co. (W.D.Ark.) 307 F.Supp. 658. The function of the Court in reviewing the evidence on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is restricted. "In making this determination, the evidence together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Giordano v. Lee (C. A.8) 434 F.2d 1227; Simpson v. Skelly Oil Company (C.A.8) 371 F.2d 563, 567; Altrichter v. Shell Oil Co. (C.A.8) 263 F.2d 377, 380. "A directed verdict is in order only where the evidence points all one way and is susceptible of no reasonable inferences sustaining the position of the nonmoving party." (Emphasis in original.) Giordano v. Lee, supra, 434 F.2d at 1231, and cases there cited. Applying those principles, the Court concludes that the contentions that the evidence was insufficient are without merit.
Defendant contends under contention numbered 4 that plaintiff William Morrison "was negligent as a matter of law in driving at an excessive speed, in failing to keep a careful lookout and in failing to stop his motor vehicle." In support of this contention, defendant states as follows:
Defendant relies on the case of Adkins v. Boss, Mo., 290 S.W.2d 139, recognizing the principle "that a plaintiff is bound by his own testimony." 290 S.W.2d at 140. That case also recognized the principle, however, that:
"In determining the question whether a plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, we bear in mind that plaintiff's negligence is a jury question, unless it may be said from all the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the only reasonable conclusion is that plaintiff was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of his injury." Id.
Even if plaintiff is, as defendant contends, bound by his testimony that, under normal conditions, he could see for a distance of 500 feet, there is no evidence, by plaintiff's testimony or otherwise, which would support the conclusion that plaintiff William Morrison could necessarily see the barrels with which he collided from a distance of 500 feet.a1 Plaintiff testified that there were intermediate interferences with his vision and that he did not see the barrels until it was impossible for him to avoid them. Viewing this testimony most favorably to him, the Court concludes that this contention must also be denied. It provides no basis for entering a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. See Simpson v. Skelly Oil Company, supra, 371 F.2d at 566-567, to the following effect:
In the case at bar, the evidence of negligence and the lack of evidence of contributory negligence does not justify either the granting of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or the granting of a new trial.1 The evidence heard by the jury gives reasonable support to the conclusion that plaintiff William Morrison was confronted by an unanticipated danger when it was too late to avoid it.2
Under both federal and Missouri state standards, before a verdict may be directed against a plaintiff on the issue of contributory negligence, the Court must find that the defendant has met the burden of proving that the plaintiff is guilty of negligence as a matter of law and further that the alleged negligence of plaintiff was a proximate cause of his damages as a matter of law. In this case there was a jury question both on the issue of the negligence of plaintiff William Morrison and the issue of proximate causal relation of that alleged negligence to the collision and damages of plaintiffs. It is unnecessary to determine whether the contributory negligence of plaintiff William Morrison would bar recovery by plaintiff Judith Morrison for part or all the damages awarded her. On this subject see Huff v. Trowbridge, Mo., 439 S.W.2d 493 at page 498 and authorities therein cited.
For the foregoing reasons, it is concluded that defendant's motion for judgment in accordance with its motion for directed verdict should be denied.
Defendant has alternatively moved for a new trial, stating the following in support:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mistler v. Mistler
...a spouse who had suffered a catastrophic injury. See Manning v. Jones, 349 F.2d 992, 994-95 (8th Cir.1965); Morrison v. Ted Wilkerson, Inc., 343 F.Supp. 1319, 1329-30 (W.D.Mo.1971). Thus we believe the record supports the conclusion that the lump-sum and monthly payments to the husband and ......
-
Davis v. International Harvester Co.
...to use in securing a new trial, when the information is readily available to counsel before or during trial." Morrison v. Ted Wilkerson, Inc. (W.D.Mo.1971), 343 F.Supp. 1319, 1333. II Plaintiff next contends that the trial court erred in refusing to allow testimony regarding a subsequent de......
-
Lopez v. Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc., C03-4015-MWB.
...might have been discovered during voir dire.") (citing Johnson v. Hill, 274 F.2d 110, 116 (8th Cir.1960); Morrison v. Ted Wilkerson, Inc., 343 F.Supp. 1319, 1331-32 (D.Mo.1971)). ...
-
State v. Willian, 1-280A42
...must be laid for admission of such proof. Kinzel v. West Park Investment Corp., (1959) Mo., 330 S.W.2d 792. Morrison v. Ted Wilkerson, Inc., (W.D.Mo.1971) 343 F.Supp. 1319, involved an accident at a bridge construction site where lane barrels had been placed to control traffic. The barrels ......