For Your Data Lavander V. Kurn Representative Brief Representative Brief Summary

Lavender v. Kurn illustration brief

SCOTUS 1946 

Posture: Jury trial returned a verdict for the plaintiff (Lavender), merely the Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the judgment because of a lack of substantial testify of negligence to back upwards the submission of the illustration to the jury. SCOTUS reverses together with reinstates the trial court’s judgment

Facts: Haney is a switch-operator for employer Illinois Central which owned yards, together with at to the lowest degree unopen to of his pay was past times Frisco. Haney threw the switch to permit the prepare to dorsum into the station; defendant’s claim Haney was required to cross to southward side of rail earlier prepare passed, together with conductor testified he saw Haney cross, merely at that topographic point was testify maxim that Haney’s duties required him to expect at the switch to alter the signals dorsum again. He was constitute dead, having been truck inwards dorsum of the head. His caput was facing southward together with unclear testify to back upwards him falling forwards to the southward merely no eye-witness testimony. The determination at autopsy was that his skull was fractured past times a fast moving modest object together with that such an object may bring been attached to the prepare or a person. Plaintiff says the prepare was negligent together with that an object hitting him every bit it was passing spell accused idea he was murdered together with that it was impossible for the prepare to hitting him. There wasn’t much testify to back upwards that murder theory; however, a foreman testified that he examined prepare together with constitute nada out of place. The Missouri Supreme courtroom said it is possible he could bring been hitting merely it was pure speculation together with non a preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiff failed to position forth substantial testify for his case. 

Reasoning: SCOTUS said that spell at that topographic point was unopen to testify that plaintiff actually was non injured every bit a consequence of negligence, the jury verdict made the inference that he was together with the accused is non able to re-litigate a factual dispute inwards a reviewing court. It would survive incorrect for the trial courtroom to weigh testify together with testimony they did non hear. Only a consummate absence of probative facts is a reversible fault merely where at that topographic point is testify that the jury’s verdict tin go survive right, it stays. 

Support this site by:•Visiting: http://www.fbdetox.com to rid yourself of that social media addition.
•Checking out our shop on Etsy: http://www.bohobuttons.com

Share this post