Vidrine v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 17 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-3581.,71-3581. |
| Citation | 466 F.2d 1217 |
| Parties | Taunice J. VIDRINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., Defendant-Appellee. Harold D. VIDRINE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
I. Jackson Burson, Jr., J. Nilas Young, Eunice, La., Young & Burson, Eunice, La., for Taunice J. Vidrine and Harold D. Vidrine.
John B. Scofield, Lake Charles, La., for defendant, appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and RIVES and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiffs in two cases consolidated for trial sought to recover damages resulting from a collision between an automobile and a freight train. The questions presented on appeal concern whether the district court abused its discretion in denying motions for new trial. In one of the cases the plaintiff was Taunice Vidrine, driver of the automobile, who sought to recover damages for his own personal injuries and for the death of his wife, Mrs. Agnes Vidrine. The jury's verdict denied him relief on the ground that he was guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of the accident. He claims that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for new trial because the jury's verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence. In the other case the plaintiffs were either guest passengers in the automobile or heirs of the decedent, Mrs. Agnes Vidrine, or both, who sought to recover damages for their own personal injuries or for the death of Mrs. Vidrine or for both. They claim that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to hold that the damages awarded by the jury were inadequate as a matter of law and in denying a new trial limited to the issue of damages or, in the alternative, a new trial on all issues. As to Taunice Vidrine, the driver, and as to the heirs of Mrs. Vidrine, we affirm. As to one of the guest passengers, we affirm; and as to the other guest passengers, we reverse and remand for a new trial on the issues both of liability and of damages.
On Sunday morning, August 3, 1969, Mr. and Mrs. Vidrine and members of their family attended early morning mass at Basile, Louisiana, and then left on about an eighty-mile trip to visit another daughter in Leesville, Louisiana. Their six-passenger Pontiac automobile carried five people in the front seat, including a three-year-old girl in her father's lap, and five people in the back seat, including a four-week-old girl in her mother's lap. They passed safely the first sixty miles of the trip to the City of DeRidder, Louisiana. There they stopped at a service station to use the rest rooms. Then they proceeded west on Mahlon Street, a two-laned one-way street, and in the left hand lane approached the railroad crossing. The freight train consisting of 166 cars and six engines, altogether over 1½ miles long, approached the crossing going south. As the Vidrine automobile attempted to cross the railroad track, it was struck by the locomotive and carried between 700 and 900 feet. As a result of the collision, all of the occupants of the automobile, except the four-week-old baby, were injured. Mrs. Agnes Vidrine lingered in a hospital for 49 days before dying from her injuries.
There was a three-day trial commencing on June 30, 1971, and concluding on July 2, 1971. At the conclusion of the evidence the district court denied the defendant's motion for a directed verdict. The court exercised its discretion to require the six-man jury to return a special verdict as permitted by Rule 49(a), F.R.Civ.P. As provided by that rule the court gave the jury full explanation and instructions to enable them to make findings upon each issue. Since no question is raised as to the court's charge, it is not necessary to set out the detailed instructions as to the respective duties of the defendant and of the plaintiffs. More pertinent to the issues on appeal are the court's instructions to the jury as to damages. Seven guest passengers in the Vidrine vehicle at the time of the collision claimed damages for their own personal injuries, namely: Harold D. Vidrine; Linda Smith Vidrine, Harold's wife; Shonda Vidrine, Harold's three-year-old daughter; Nelda Faye Vidrine; Beverly Medina Vidrine; Loretta Hebert Vidrine; and Roxanna Vidrine. Included in their claim for these personal injuries are claims for medical expenses occasioned by the accident, lost wages, impairment of future earning capacity, physical and mental pain and suffering, and permanent disability or disfigurement. The court charged that, "Should you find liability, each person would be entitled to his proven damages, you should not average out or divide up a total sum among the injured in reaching an amount of damages." In addition to the personal injury claims of the seven guest passengers, six surviving children of Mrs. Agnes Vidrine claimed damages because of her wrongful death. One item of such damages is the loss of companionship, love and affection which these children have suffered and will suffer as a result of the death of their mother. As an additional element of damages, each of the six children could recover one-twelfth of the entire medical bills which the mother, Mrs. Agnes Vidrine, incurred in her last illness and each could recover one-sixth of her funeral expenses.
In its special verdict the jury found that the defendant was negligent and that its negligence was a proximate cause of the accident; that Taunice Vidrine, the driver of the automobile, was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. The jury found that none of the guest passengers was guilty of negligence. As to the damages, the jury found as follows:
A. For Harold D. Vidrine
1. for his personal injuries $500.00
2. for the medical expenses of his
wife, Linda Smith Vidrine, $500.00
3. for the medical expenses of his
daughter, Shonda Vidrine, $3,000.00
4. for the death of his mother
Agnes Vidrine, $3,000.00
B. For Linda Smith Vidrine -0-
C. For Shonda Vidrine -0-
D. For Rogers Vidrine on behalf of
his daughter, Roxanna Vidrine $500.00
E. For Taunice Vidrine on behalf of
his daughter Nelda Faye Vidrine
1. For her personal injuries $500.00
2. for the death of her mother
Agnes Vidrine, $3,000.00
F. For Taunice Vidrine on behalf of
his daughter Beverly Medina
Vidrine
1. for her personal injuries $3,000.00
2. for the death of her mother
Agnes Vidrine, $3,000.00
G. For Loretta Hebert Vidrine for
her personal injuries $500.00
H. For Rogers Vidrine for the death
of his mother, Agnes Vidrine, $3,000.00
I. For Wilda Mae Vidrine Taylor
for the death of her mother,
Agnes Vidrine, $3,000.00
J. For Barbara Lane Vidrine Olivier
for the death of her mother,
Agnes Vidrine, $3,000.00
Judgment was entered pursuant to the jury's special verdict. Thereafter the plaintiffs moved the court for a new trial limited to a determination of the damages sustained by the plaintiffs, claiming that the assessment of damages was inadequate as a matter of law, and, in the alternative, the plaintiffs moved the court to award plaintiffs a new trial on all issues in the case. The plaintiff Taunice Vidrine separately moved the court to grant him a new trial on the ground that the weight of the evidence did not support the verdict that he was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of the collision. The court denied the motions for new trial without explanation. Each of the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment and from the judgment denying the several motions for new trial. The issues on appeal, however, are limited to questions of whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motions for new trial.
Though the Supreme Court has never clearly so held,1 the Fifth Circuit is now firmly committed to the doctrine restated in Whiteman v. Pitrie, 5 Cir. 1955, 220 F.2d 914, 919:
"A simple restatement of the position of this Court is as follows: In reviewing a motion for new trial based on the ground of the inadequacy or excessiveness of the verdict, as well as one based on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the rule applies that `* * * an abuse of discretion is an exception to the rule that the granting or refusing of a new trial is not assignable as error.\' Commercial Credit Corporation v. Pepper, supra 187 F.2d 71; Houston Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Kelley, 5 Cir., 131 F.2d 627, 628; Fort Worth & Denver Ry. Co. v. Roach, 5 Cir., 219 F.2d 351."2
Rule 59(a), F.R.Civ.P., permits the granting of a new trial to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues. It is, however, well settled that a new trial on part of the issues "may not properly be resorted to unless it clearly appears that the issue to be retried is so distinct and separable from the others that a trial of it alone may be had without injustice." Gasoline Products Co. v. Champlin Co., 1931, 283 U.S. 494, 500,3 51 S.Ct. 513, 515, 75 L.Ed. 1188.
Pursuant to the finding of the special verdict that Taunice Vidrine was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of the accident, the district court entered judgment dismissing with prejudice the demands of the plaintiff Taunice Vidrine. Clearly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Taunice Vidrine's motion for new trial.
Taunice Vidrine testified that he was familiar with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Channel 20, Inc. v. World Wide Towers Services, Inc.
...E.g., Juneau Square Corp. v. First Wisconsin National Bank of Milwaukee, 624 F.2d 798 (7th Cir.1980); Vidrine v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 466 F.2d 1217 (5th Cir.1972); Compagnie Nationale Air France v. Port of New York Authority, 427 F.2d 951 (2d Cir. 1970). This course is an appro......
-
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
...trial over particular issues requires those issues to be clearly separable from other issues in the case); Vidrine v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 466 F.2d 1217, 1221 (5th Cir.1972) (observing that a partial retrial is only appropriate where issues are “so distinct and separable” that there will......
-
Haas v. Atlantic Richfield
...court to adopt a suitable guide for monetary value of the intangibles and to determine a proper amount. Vidrine v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 466 F.2d 1217, 1223 (5th Cir.1972). We do not find $25,000 grossly inadequate. In sum, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion ......
-
Richardson v. Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO
...Gasoline Products Company v. Champlin Refining Co., 283 U.S. 494, 500, 51 S.Ct. 513, 75 L.Ed. 1188 (1931); Vidrine v. Kansas City Southern Railway, 466 F.2d 1217, 1221 (5th Cir. 1972); United Air Lines, Inc. v. Wiener, 286 F.2d 302, 306 (9th Cir. 1961). No abuse of discretion in granting a ......