Simblest v. Maynard - 427 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1970)

Rule:

In determining whether the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted, a threshold question is presented as to the correct standard to be applied. This standard has been expressed in various ways. It is whether the evidence is such that, without weighing the credibility of the witnesses or otherwise considering the weight of the evidence, there can be but one conclusion as to the verdict that reasonable men could have reached.

Facts:

At the time of the accident, approximately 5:27 P.M., it was dark, traffic was light and the weather was clear. Samuel Simblest was driving his 1964 Chrysler station wagon in a westerly direction on Main Street, approaching the intersection. Joseph Maynard was driving the fire engine, in response to a fire alarm, in a southerly direction on South Willard Street, also approaching the intersection. The fire engine struck Simblest’s car on the right side, in the area of the fender and front door. Simblest’s head struck the post on the left side of his car, causing him to lose consciousness for about a minute. He claims that this injury aggravated a chronic pre-existing degenerative arthritic condition of the spine. Maynard’s motions for a directed verdict at the close of Simblest’s case and at the close of all the evidence having been denied and the jury having returned a Simblest’s verdict, Maynard moved to set aside the verdict and the judgment entered thereon and for entry of judgment n.o.v. in accordance with his motion for a directed verdict. On appeal Simblest urges that the district court erred in granting Maynard’s motion for judgment n.o.v. or, in the alternative, in declining to charge the jury on the doctrine of last clear chance.

Issue:

Did the district court properly set aside the verdict and enter judgment for Maynard notwithstanding the verdict?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The court found that under either the Vermont standard, allowing all evidence to be considered, or the more restrictive federal standard, Simblest was contributorily negligent as a matter of law and that the district court properly set aside the verdict and entered judgment for Maynard notwithstanding the verdict. The court rejected Simblest’s last clear chance argument, holding that the overwhelming evidence demonstrated that Maynard could not have avoided the accident.