Galloway v. United States
319 U.S. 372 (1943)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal court may direct a verdict against a party, without violating the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, when the evidence presented is legally insufficient to support a jury verdict in that party's favor. Mere speculation or inference cannot substitute for probative facts, especially to bridge a significant evidentiary gap where proof should be available.
Facts:
- Joseph Galloway worked as a longshoreman before enlisting in the U.S. Army in November 1917.
- While serving in France in 1918, fellow soldiers observed two incidents of bizarre behavior: one in which he created a disturbance and another where he falsely screamed 'The Germans are coming' and had to be gagged.
- Galloway was honorably discharged from the Army on April 29, 1919, and his War Risk Insurance policy lapsed for non-payment on May 31, 1919.
- A childhood friend, O'Neill, testified that upon Galloway's return in 1919, he was a 'wreck' and exhibited erratic behavior, paranoia, and crying spells for an indefinite period, possibly until 1922.
- Galloway enlisted in the Navy in January 1920 but received a bad conduct discharge that July. He then re-enlisted in the Army in December 1920 and served until he deserted in May 1922.
- No evidence was presented regarding Galloway's activities, whereabouts, or condition for the approximately eight-year period between his desertion in 1922 and 1930, except for the fact that he married his wife during this time.
- Beginning in 1930, a series of Veterans' Bureau medical examinations diagnosed Galloway with increasingly severe mental illnesses, culminating in a 1934 diagnosis of 'Psychosis-manic and depressive insanity.'
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Galloway, through his guardian, filed a claim for War Risk Insurance benefits in June 1934, which the Board of Veterans' Appeals ultimately denied in January 1936.
- Galloway filed suit against the United States in the U.S. District Court (a court of first instance) on June 15, 1938, seeking the insurance benefits.
- At the close of all evidence during the trial, the District Court granted the Government's motion for a directed verdict, and judgment was entered in favor of the Government.
- Galloway, as the appellant, appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment of the District Court.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals.
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 granting a directed verdict for insufficiency of evidence, particularly where a plaintiff's case relies on inference to bridge a multi-year gap in factual evidence, violate the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a trial by jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Rutledge
No. A directed verdict based on the legal insufficiency of the evidence does not violate the Seventh Amendment, as the constitutional right to a jury trial does not compel courts to allow juries to render verdicts based on speculation rather than probative facts. The petitioner's burden was to prove total and permanent disability as of May 31, 1919, by showing a continuous condition. However, the evidence presented left an eight-year gap from 1922 to 1930, for which no information on his condition or activities was provided, despite his wife being available to testify. An expert witness's 'long-range retroactive diagnosis' is insufficient to bridge such a 'wide and deep' canyon in the evidence. The Seventh Amendment was designed to preserve the fundamental elements of a jury trial, not every procedural detail from 1791, and it does not require a court to submit a case to a jury when the evidence is so thin as to be 'mere speculation.'
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. Granting a directed verdict in this case usurps the jury's constitutionally mandated role as the trier of fact and continues the judicial erosion of the Seventh Amendment. The majority improperly weighed the evidence and assessed the credibility of witnesses, functions that belong exclusively to the jury. There was substantial evidence from fellow soldiers, a friend, and a commanding officer from which a jury could have reasonably concluded that Galloway's disability was continuous from 1919. The gap in evidence is a matter of factual weakness for the government to argue to the jury, not a legal flaw that justifies taking the case away from them entirely. A verdict should only be directed when there is no room whatever for an honest difference of opinion, and this case, with its conflicting testimony and inferences, clearly did not meet that standard.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision affirming the constitutionality of the directed verdict in federal civil trials under the Seventh Amendment. It establishes that a plaintiff's evidence must be sufficient to provide a continuous and factually supported narrative, holding that significant, unexplained gaps cannot be bridged by speculative expert testimony alone. The decision clarifies that the Seventh Amendment protects the 'substance' of the right to a jury trial rather than every procedural detail of 1791 common law, thereby granting federal judges significant authority to prevent factually deficient cases from reaching the jury. Justice Black's powerful dissent frames the ongoing tension between judicial efficiency and the constitutional mandate for juries to decide questions of fact, credibility, and reasonable inference.
Unlock the full brief for Galloway v. United States