Bessie C. LAMPKA, Appellant, v. WILSON LINE OF WASHINGTON, INC., Appellee

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit1963-11-21No. No. 17705

325 F.2d 628

Summary · law.co

Holding. The directed verdict entered on the basis of the opening statement alone was reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings to allow the plaintiff to present evidence on whether the defendant owed a duty, breached that duty, and proximately caused her injuries.

A passenger filed suit against a ferry company for injuries sustained while disembarking, alleging the company negligently failed to implement adequate safety measures during the simultaneous departure of 100 to 150 passengers through a narrow 12-foot exit passageway. The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of the ferry company based solely on the plaintiff's opening statement to the jury, without allowing the plaintiff to present evidence.

The appellate court addressed whether dismissal based on an opening statement alone is appropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While recognizing that directed verdicts may sometimes be justified at this stage, the court found that the plaintiff's complaint, pretrial submissions, and opening statement all adequately asserted the elements of a negligence claim: that the defendant owed a duty to the passenger during disembarkation, that duty was breached, and the breach caused injury. The court emphasized that the plaintiff should be permitted to present her evidence to establish these elements rather than having the case dismissed before trial.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a directed verdict may be granted based on a plaintiff's opening statement before evidence is presented
Whether a negligence complaint adequately states a claim when it alleges a duty to passengers during disembarkation and a breach of that duty
The proper scope and timing of summary disposition motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Procedural posture

The plaintiff appealed from a directed verdict entered by the district court in favor of the defendant ferry company, which was based solely on the plaintiff's opening statement before she presented evidence.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PER CURIAM.

The District Court directed a verdict for the defendant, appellee here, on the basis of appellant’s opening statement to the jury. Appellant contends first that the complaint states a claim on which relief could be granted and second that the opening statement asserts appellee’s negligence in failing to perform its duty to take adequate precaution against the foreseeable hazards incident to the simultaneous disembarkation of 100 to 150 passengers through a passageway which narrows to approximately 12 feet at the exit.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide various means for summary disposition of litigation. A defendant may first challenge a plaintiff’s claim by attacking the complaint for failing to state facts on which relief may be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). Motion for summary judgment may also be made before trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(b). At the close of a plaintiff’s case a defendant may move to dismiss, Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), or for a directed verdict, Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a); and at the close of all the evidence a motion for a directed verdict may be made again. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b). Dis missal after the opening statement is not specifically authorized in the Rules but is a vestige of practice before the Rules were adopted.

Since the opening statement may be waived entirely, grave doubt arises whether, if a complaint states a cause of action, an opening statement can so dilute the formal pleading as to afford a basis for summary disposition. Although a directed verdict on plaintiff’s opening statement may be justified in some cases, this is not such a case. From time to time we have called attention to the standards which the Supreme Court, in Best v. District of Columbia, 291 U.S. 411, 415-416, 54 S.Ct. 487, 78 L.Ed. 882 (1934), held should be applied in these circumstances. See, e. g., Daisey v. Colonial Parking, Inc., No. 17703, D.C. Cir. Sept. 27, 1963, p. 2 and concurring opinion p. 8; Calbreath v. Capital Transit Company, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 83, 240 F.2d 621 (1956); Greene v. Hathaway, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 229, 191 F.2d 656 (1951).

Here the complaint, the pretrial statement, the Pretrial Examiner’s Statement and the opening statement to the jury all claim that a duty was owed to appellant as a passenger, that this duty continued throughout the process of disembarking and so long as the passenger remained on appellee’s dock or other related premises, that this duty was breached and that injury próximately resulted. We, of course, intimate no ruling on the merits of appellant’s claim but hold only that the facts alleged in the opening statement, as in the complaint, assert a claim which entitles her to adduce her evidence. Whether that evidence will establish a duty, a breach of duty and proximately caused injury remains to be seen. Cf. Schwartzman v. Lloyd, 65 App.D.C. 216, 82 F.2d 822 (1936); Dilley v. Baltimore Transit Co., 183 Md. 557, 39 A.2d 469, 155 A.L.R. 627 (1944). Compare Nazarro v. Hudson & Manhattan Ry. Co., 125 N.J.L. 108, 14 A.2d 521 (N.J.1940).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.