Southern Pacific Company v. Joe J. Jordan
395 F.2d 209
January 4, 1968 · Docket 24228_1
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 1
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to submit the issue of discovered peril to the jury because the evidence, when viewed most favorably to the appellee, could support a genuine factual dispute.
- Headnote 2
The court found no reversible error in the trial court’s supplemental charge because, when read as a whole, it did not misstate the law or mislead the jury, despite the appellant’s criticism that it resembled an Allen charge.
- Headnote 3
The court emphasizes its deference to the trial judge’s factual findings and the requirement to consider the evidence maximally favorably to the side that did not move, allowing reversal only when the record shows no factual basis for the jury’s decision.
- Headnote 4
The court held that the evidence regarding the “discovered peril” was adequate; a reasonable jury could find for the appellee, so the issue was properly submitted for jury determination.
- Headnote 5
The court rejected the appellant’s criticism of the trial court’s supplemental charge, finding that when read as a whole the instruction contained no legal error or misleading language and therefore did not constitute reversible error.
- Headnote 6
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to submit the “discovered peril” issue to the jury because, when the record is viewed most favorably to the appellee, a reasonable jury could find for that party.
- Headnote 7
The court found no reversible error in the trial court’s supplemental charge because, when read as a whole, the instruction did not misstate the law or confuse the jury, despite the appellant’s criticism.
Opinion
Recognizing, as we do, the limitations upon our power of review of jury verdicts, we are unable to do otherwise than affirm the judgment of the trial court in this railroad crossing damage suit. Viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the appellee, as we must, we cannot say that there was insufficient evidence to warrant submission of the case to the jury on the issue of discovered peril, as contended by the appellant. There is no merit in the appellant’s criticism of the trial court’s supplemental charge which appellant likens to the “Allen or dynamite” charge in criminal cases. Reading the charge as a whole, as we must, we find no reversible errors in the manner in which the case was submitted to the jury.
The judgment is affirmed.