Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman
1935 U.S. LEXIS 334, 55 S. Ct. 890, 295 U.S. 654 (1935)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Seventh Amendment does not prohibit a court from entering a judgment contrary to a jury's verdict if the court reserved its ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, based on the legal sufficiency of the evidence, before submitting the case to the jury.
Facts:
- A plaintiff sustained personal injuries.
- The plaintiff alleged that the injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendant, Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. (defendant) in a federal trial court in New York for personal injuries.
- At the close of evidence, the defendant moved for a dismissal and for a directed verdict, arguing the evidence was insufficient.
- The trial court reserved its decision on the motions and submitted the case to the jury.
- The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
- The trial court then denied the defendant's reserved motions and entered a judgment for the plaintiff on the verdict.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals held the evidence was insufficient and reversed the judgment, but directed a new trial rather than a dismissal.
- The defendant (petitioner) sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the direction for a new trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Seventh Amendment permit an appellate court to reverse a trial court's judgment and direct a judgment of dismissal when it finds the evidence legally insufficient to support the jury's verdict, if the trial court had reserved its ruling on a motion for a directed verdict pending the jury's decision?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Van Devanter
Yes. The Seventh Amendment permits an appellate court to direct a judgment of dismissal under these circumstances. The amendment's guarantee of a jury trial preserves the right as it existed under English common law when the amendment was adopted. A well-established common law practice was for a trial court to reserve its ruling on a question of law, such as the sufficiency of the evidence, and take the jury's verdict subject to its later ruling. This practice does not unconstitutionally re-examine facts found by a jury; rather, it allows for the proper resolution of a legal issue that was expressly reserved. When the trial court errs in its eventual ruling on the reserved legal question, the appellate court can correct that error and direct the entry of the judgment that the trial court should have entered. This situation is distinct from Slocum v. New York Life Insurance Co., where the motion for a directed verdict was denied outright without any reservation, making the jury's verdict unconditional and unchangeable by the court except by ordering a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and limits the scope of Slocum v. New York Life Insurance Co., promoting judicial efficiency by endorsing the practice of reserving judgment on motions for a directed verdict (now known as motions for judgment as a matter of law under FRCP 50). It establishes that if a legal question about the sufficiency of evidence is properly reserved, an appellate court can dispose of a case finally without ordering a costly and time-consuming new trial. This preserves the common-law distinction between the judge's role in deciding questions of law and the jury's role in deciding questions of fact, reinforcing a key procedural tool still used in federal courts.
