Marshall v. Nugent case brief summary
222 F.2d 604 (1st Cir. 1955)
CASE FACTS
Three appeals arose from judgments in favor of injured plaintiff. The first, by defendant oil company, alleged error on grounds of lower court's refusal of motion for directed verdict at close of all the evidence as to contributory negligence as a matter of law; that defendant's acts constituted merely a condition, not a proximate cause, of harm; and employee's conduct was outside scope of employment.
DISCUSSION
Court affirmed judgment against defendant oil company as plaintiff's attempt to warn was reasonable and did not constitute contributory negligence; extra risks created by defendant's negligence were not over after collision; court affirmed judgment against plaintiff as jury verdict was not so decidedly against evidence as to shock conscience.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
222 F.2d 604 (1st Cir. 1955)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Co-defendants and plaintiff
cross-appealed judgments of the district court in an action alleging
negligence for injuries suffered while plaintiff attempted to warn
oncoming traffic of dangerous traffic condition.CASE FACTS
Three appeals arose from judgments in favor of injured plaintiff. The first, by defendant oil company, alleged error on grounds of lower court's refusal of motion for directed verdict at close of all the evidence as to contributory negligence as a matter of law; that defendant's acts constituted merely a condition, not a proximate cause, of harm; and employee's conduct was outside scope of employment.
DISCUSSION
- The court found plaintiff acted as reasonable person to warn oncoming traffic of accident; plaintiff's injury was not remote and occurred while accident scene still existed; and oil company's employee briefly stopped while in the course of authorized journey.
- The court found plaintiff's contention that lower court's judgment in favor of co-defendant, driver of automobile that struck plaintiff, was proper because no evidence of substantial or prejudicial error at trial existed.
- The court found that defendant oil company lacked standing to assert indemnification.
Court affirmed judgment against defendant oil company as plaintiff's attempt to warn was reasonable and did not constitute contributory negligence; extra risks created by defendant's negligence were not over after collision; court affirmed judgment against plaintiff as jury verdict was not so decidedly against evidence as to shock conscience.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
No comments:
Post a Comment