Lind v. Schenley Industries

278 F.2d 79 (3d Cir. 1960)

What's Going On?

Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's grant of a motion for a j.n.o.v. and, alternatively, for a new trial, in a breach of contract action where Plaintiff (employee) alleged that Defendant (employer) broke an oral promise to give Plaintiff a raise and a share of commissions.

Who's Who?

Plaintiff     :

Lind – sales manager for Defendant.

Defendant :

Schenley Industries – liquor company.

Facts:

In a breach of contract action, Plaintiff Lind, a sales manager, alleged that his employer, Defendant Schenley Industries, a liquor company, breached an oral promise of a pay raise and a share of commissions. Plaintiff's secretary testified that Plaintiff's allegations were true. The jury found that a contract existed and awarded damages to Plaintiff. Defendant moved for a j.n.o.v. and, alternatively, for a new trial. The trial judge granted the j.n.o.v. and the new trial, finding the jury's verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence, contrary to law, and a result of an error in the admission of evidence. Plaintiff appeals.

Issue:

Does a trial court abuse its discretion by granting a new trial on grounds that the jury verdict is against the weight of the evidence?

Decision:

Yes. The district court erred in determining that the verdict was contrary to law, and it erred in admitting certain evidence. The district court's final basis for ordering a new trial was that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The granting of a motion for a new trial on this ground is ordinarily nonreviewable; however, an appellate court may find that a trial court abused its discretion in granting such a motion if it finds that the court failed to correctly apply the proper standards in reaching its determination. In a situation where a new trial is ordered because evidence was improperly admitted, the problem at trial was a result of something over which the jury had no control and the court does not usurp the prime function of the jury by directing a verdict. In contrast, where a new trial is granted because the judge believes that the jury verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the judge has substituted his judgment for that of the jury. It is the prime function of the jury, not the judge, to try facts. Because such an action by a judge denigrates the jury system, the appellate court must exercise a closer degree of scrutiny and supervision in order to protect the litigants' right to a jury trial. In this case, the subject matter of the litigation is simply and easily comprehended by any intelligent layman. The main task of the jury was to determine if the witnesses were truthful. The jury found the testimony of Plaintiff and his secretary to be credible, and therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by substituting its judgment for that of the jury. Reversed and remanded with the direction to the court to reinstate the verdict in favor of Plaintiff.

Basic Rule:

A trial court abuses its discretion by substituting its judgment for that of the jury.

Dissent:

The majority erred in reversing the trial judge's alternative order. There is no precedent in this court for such an action. The trial judge has great discretion in granting a new trial, and such discretion is a necessary limitation on the power of the jury to make an unimpeachable decision on the facts. The only role of the reviewing court is to ensure that the trial judge's decision was rationally based. Based on the evidence in this case, the trial court could rationally have determined that the Plaintiff's claim of a raise was incredible. In such a circumstance, the trial court does not abuse its discretion by granting a new trial.

Terms:

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.) :

A judgment that reverses the determination of the jury, finding for one party in spite of the fact that the jury found for another party.

Home  |  Briefs  |  Glossary  |  Contact Us