Ohio Railway Company guilty of willful, wanton, or reckless disregard (1) Were the officers, agents and employees of the Chesapeake and If you answer question number (9) "yes," what is your verdict on The time he was struck by the refrigerator car and his death? (9) Did John Kozar sustain conscious pain and suffering between If you answer question number (8) "yes," what is your verdict on (8) Was John Kozar aware of the fact that the refrigerator car wasįalling on him, so as to sustain damages from fright and mental anguish His daughters, Sandra Beurkens and Pamela Murray? Services, advice and aid which John Kozar would have performed for (7) What is your verdict for compensatory damages for the loss of Which John Kozar, his father, would have given to his son had he His son, John Scott Kozar, of the care, attention, training and guidance (6) What is your verdict for compensatory damages for the loss to The value of any services which John Kozar would have performed for (5) What is your verdict for compensatory damages for the loss of His wife, Anne Kozar, and his son, John Scott Kozar? (4) What is your verdict of compensatory damages for the loss ofĬontribution for support which John Kozar would have provided for (3) What percentage did John Kozar's negligence contribute to the If you answer both question number (1) and question number (2) (2) If John Kozar was guilty of negligence, was this negligence a If you answer question number (1) "yes," then answer question Jury followed the court's instructions, and decided as follows: Thisĭone, they were then to proceed to the punitive damage question. Minds any factors relevant only to the punitive damage issue. Instructed to first consider compensatory damages, striking from their Kozar,įollowing the jury's response above, the issue of damages was triedĪnd submitted on two separate sets of interrogatories. Of John Kozar, and the resulting injuries to his wife, Anne P. (2) Was such negligence a proximate cause of the injuries and death If the answer to question number (1) is "yes," then answer question To its negligence in its cars, engines, appliances, machinery, works, or Whole or in part, by reason of acts or omissions of any of its officers,Īgents or employees, or by reason of any defect or insufficiency due (1) Was the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad guilty of negligence, in The jury will from the evidence answer the following in writing: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION The issue of liability was presented first and submitted to the jury on written interrogatories from the court, pursuant to Rule 49(b): Thus a separation of issues here not only reduces confusion but enhances the likelihood of the just determination, based solely on the merits of the case, demanded by Rule 1. This latter, under the statute, is material only to damages, and its consideration, to any extent, when determining liability can substantially endanger the rights of an injured plaintiff. Such a separation of issues in a Federal Employers' Liability Act case also avoids any potential prejudice arising from the issue of contributory negligence. This was done to facilitate the jury's performance of its function and to promote the "expedition and economy" contemplated by Rule 1 and Rule 42(b). The court, pursuant to Rules 1, 42(b) and 83 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ordered separate trials on the issues of liability and damages. Instead, it asserted that John Kozar's negligence was the sole cause of his death. The answer denied that the railroad's conduct was wrongful or that it had caused John Kozar's death. Finally, the plaintiff claimed that the railroad's conduct was so wrongful that it was liable for punitive damages. Damages were also sought for the injuries that John Kozar endured before his death as the result of the defendant's conduct. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought damages for the financial loss suffered by his beneficiaries. The complaint charged that the defendant's wrongful conduct caused John Kozar's death. Kozar, against The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, for damages resulting from the Februaccident that took John Kozar's life, pursuant to the Federal Employers' Liability Act. Kozar, as administratrix of the Estate of *338 John P. Straub, general trial counsel, Southfield, Mich., for defendant. Strawhecker, Grand Rapids, Mich., local counsel, Robert A. Bransdorfer, Grand Rapids, Mich., of counsel, for plaintiff. *336 *337 Miller, Johnson, Snell & Cummiskey, Grand Rapids, Mich., Stephen C. The CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY, a Virginia corporation, Defendant. KOZAR, Administratrix of the Estate of John P.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |