Simblest v. Maynard

427 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1970)

Quick Summary

Quick Summary Icon

Samuel Simblest (plaintiff) sued Joseph Maynard (defendant) following a collision during a power outage where Simblest’s car was struck by Maynard’s fire engine. The main issue revolved around whether Maynard was negligent and if Simblest had any last clear chance to avoid the accident.

The trial court granted Maynard’s motion for judgment n.o.v., reversing the jury’s verdict in favor of Simblest. The appellate court affirmed this decision based on contributory negligence and lack of evidence for last clear chance.

Facts of the Case

Facts of the case Icon

Samuel Simblest (plaintiff), a New Hampshire citizen, was on a business trip in Burlington, Vermont when he encountered Joseph Maynard (defendant), a Vermont resident and Burlington Fire Department fireman. On the evening of November 9, 1965, during a widespread power outage, the plaintiff’s vehicle was struck by a fire engine driven by the defendant at an intersection.

Simblest claimed that he had a green light upon entering the intersection but that the traffic signals went out amidst crossing due to the power failure. Contrarily, Maynard and other witnesses asserted that the traffic signals had been non-operational for several minutes prior to the incident.

The collision led to Simblest filing a lawsuit against Maynard, accusing him of negligence which resulted in Simblest’s vehicle being hit by the fire engine.

Procedural Posture and History

History Icon
  1. Simblest filed a lawsuit against Maynard alleging negligence.
  2. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Simblest.
  3. Maynard filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (n.o.v.), which was granted by the trial court, setting aside the jury’s verdict.
  4. Simblest appealed the decision to grant the motion for judgment n.o.v.

I.R.A.C. Format

Issue

Issue Icon
  • Whether the trial court erred in granting Maynard’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
  • Whether the doctrine of last clear chance should have been applied.

Rule of Law

Rule Icon

In a negligence case, a party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law if there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.

Reasoning and Analysis

Reasoning Icon

The appellate court reviewed evidence from both parties without weighing witness credibility or evidence weight, determining if only one conclusion could be reached by reasonable individuals. The evidence was considered in light most favorable to Simblest, who had the burden of proof.

The court found that under both Vermont law and federal standards, Simblest was contributorily negligent as he failed to observe the fire engine’s siren or flashing lights as required by Vermont law. The court also concluded that there was no adequate evidence to apply the doctrine of last clear chance, as Simblest did not have an opportunity to avoid the accident once he observed the fire engine so close to his vehicle.

Conclusion

Conclusion Icon

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to set aside the jury’s verdict and enter judgment in favor of Maynard.

Key Takeaways

Takeaway Icon
  1. A party may receive judgment as a matter of law in a negligence case if there is no sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in their favor.
  2. Contributory negligence by a plaintiff can be grounds for setting aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendant.
  3. The doctrine of last clear chance requires evidence that the defendant could have avoided the accident even after the plaintiff’s contributory negligence.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What criteria must be met for a court to grant judgment as a matter of law in a negligence case?

The court can grant judgment as a matter of law when it determines that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the opposing party due to insufficient evidence regarding a material fact in question.

  • For example: If a person slips on a wet floor but there were clear warning signs posted, a judge might rule as a matter of law that the property owner is not negligent because the signs provided adequate warning.

How does contributory negligence affect the outcome of a negligence claim?

Contributory negligence can completely bar recovery for the plaintiff if it is proven that the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to their harm, irrespective of the defendant’s negligence.

  • For example: If a pedestrian wearing dark clothes at night jaywalks and is hit by a speeding car, the pedestrian’s contributory negligence may prevent them from recovering damages from the driver.

What are the prerequisites for applying the doctrine of last clear chance in negligence lawsuits?

The doctrine of last clear chance can be applied when the defendant had a final opportunity to avoid the accident, even after the plaintiff’s negligent act, and fails to do so.

  • For example: A driver, who sees another car stalled on railroad tracks, fails to take any evasive action despite having ample time to stop or change course, leading to a collision. The stalled car’s driver could invoke the doctrine as they were unable to move their vehicle.

References

Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Civil Procedure