Simblest v. Maynard
427 F.2d 1 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's testimony that they did not see or hear an emergency vehicle's warning signals is insufficient to create a jury question and may be disregarded as a matter of law when it is contradicted by overwhelming testimony from other witnesses and indisputable physical facts.
Facts:
- On the night of November 9, 1965, during a widespread electrical blackout in Burlington, Vermont, traffic signals at the intersection of Main Street and South Willard Street were not functioning.
- Plaintiff Simblest, an experienced driver, was operating his station wagon westerly on Main Street and approached the intersection.
- Defendant Maynard, a firefighter, was driving a fire engine southerly on South Willard Street, responding to a fire alarm.
- The fire engine was operating with multiple warning devices, including a siren, a wailing 'penetrator' sound, and several flashing red lights.
- Simblest entered the intersection without first looking to his right for oncoming traffic.
- Simblest testified he first looked to his right when he was halfway to three-quarters of the way through the intersection, at which point he saw the fire engine for the first time, approximately 12 feet away.
- The fire engine struck the right side of Simblest's vehicle within the intersection.
- While Simblest testified he did not see any flashing lights or hear a siren, every other witness at the scene testified that they saw the fire engine's flashing lights and/or heard its siren.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Simblest sued defendant Maynard for negligence in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont.
- The defendant's motions for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's case and at the close of all evidence were denied by the trial court.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him $17,125.
- The defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (judgment n.o.v.).
- The district court granted the defendant's motion for judgment n.o.v., overturning the jury's verdict and entering judgment for the defendant.
- The plaintiff, Simblest, appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 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 plaintiff's testimony that they did not see or hear an approaching emergency vehicle's warning signals sufficient to create a jury question on contributory negligence when that testimony is contradicted by all other witnesses and the physical facts demonstrate the plaintiff had an insufficient opportunity to observe?
Opinions:
Majority - Timbers, J.
No. A plaintiff's testimony is insufficient to create a jury question when it is contradicted by overwhelming evidence and physical facts, and in such a case, the plaintiff can be found contributorily negligent as a matter of law. The court held that under Vermont law, drivers have a statutory duty to yield to emergency vehicles that are sounding a siren or displaying a red light. While the jury found for Simblest, the court determined that no reasonable person could have reached that conclusion based on the evidence. Simblest's testimony that he did not see the flashing lights or hear the siren was contradicted by every other witness. Furthermore, his own testimony that he only saw the engine for a fraction of a second before impact, when it was 12 feet away, meant his opportunity to observe was too short for his testimony to have any probative value. The court concluded that Simblest's testimony was 'tantamount to no proof at all' and was the 'equivalent of his saying that he did not look at all,' establishing his contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This case is a key example of the 'physical facts rule' and the standard for granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). It establishes that a jury does not have unlimited discretion to credit testimony that is incredible or contrary to undisputed physical evidence. The decision reinforces a trial judge's authority to overturn a verdict when the evidence can lead to only one reasonable conclusion, even if it requires disregarding the plaintiff's own testimony. For future negligence cases, it signifies that a party's self-serving testimony, when isolated and contradicted by a mass of objective evidence and disinterested witnesses, may be deemed legally insufficient to support a verdict.
