Floyd W. Freed, III v. The Erie Lackawanna Railway Company
1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8876, 445 F.2d 619, 15 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 740 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An answer to an interrogatory is an evidentiary admission that may be contradicted by other evidence at trial; it is not a binding judicial admission that conclusively establishes the fact.
Facts:
- Floyd W. Freed, III, was a head brakeman on a freight train operated by Erie Lackawanna Railway Company.
- The accident occurred in the North Randall switching area, which contained numerous tracks.
- Freed and a fireman had just finished their work on a train and were walking along a right-of-way to go to lunch.
- The fireman, realizing he had forgotten his cigarettes, turned and called to the engineer of the train they had just left.
- This action diverted Freed's attention for a few seconds.
- While distracted, Freed was struck by the lead car (a caboose) of a different train that was slowly backing up as part of a switching operation.
Procedural Posture:
- Floyd W. Freed, III, sued Erie Lackawanna Railway Company in federal district court under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act for personal injuries.
- In response to a pretrial interrogatory, Erie Lackawanna stated the accident occurred outside of the official "yard limits."
- At trial, Erie Lackawanna presented witness testimony that the accident occurred within the yard limits, contradicting its interrogatory answer.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Erie Lackawanna Railway Company.
- Freed's motion for a new trial was overruled by the District Court.
- Freed (appellant) appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a party's answer to a pretrial interrogatory a binding judicial admission that prevents the party from introducing contradictory evidence at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Brooks, Circuit Judge
No. A party's answer to a pretrial interrogatory is not a binding judicial admission and may be contradicted by other evidence. Answers to interrogatories are evidentiary admissions, comparable to deposition testimony, which may be mistaken or supplied before an investigation is complete. When an interrogatory answer conflicts with other evidence presented at trial, it is the duty of the fact-finder, in this case the jury, to weigh all the evidence and resolve the conflict. Therefore, the trial court properly allowed the defendant to introduce testimony contradicting its interrogatory answer and correctly declined to instruct the jury that the answer was a binding fact.
Concurring - Peck, Circuit Judge
No. I agree with the result but would decide the case on narrower grounds. The defendant's answer to the interrogatory should not be binding because the subject matter, the precise delineation of "yard limits," is not capable of a precise answer. The majority's reliance on broad language suggesting that no answer to an interrogatory is ever binding goes too far. This opinion would leave open the question of whether an answer to a clear and precise interrogatory might be binding in other circumstances, rather than establishing a universal rule.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary status of answers to interrogatories, treating them as evidentiary admissions rather than conclusive judicial admissions. It affirms that the purpose of discovery is not to lock parties into premature statements, but to gather information. This ruling gives parties more flexibility to present a complete case at trial, even if it includes evidence that contradicts early discovery responses. Consequently, it places the burden on the jury to resolve factual inconsistencies by weighing the credibility of all evidence presented, including both the initial interrogatory answer and subsequent contradictory testimony.
