ANITA PRITCHARD, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF OTTO E. PRITCHARD, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a prior finding of causation by the jury should not be relitigated, but issues of liability and damages must be.
Plaintiff sued for personal injury based on negligence and breach of warranty. The jury found causation, no negligence, no express warranty, and assum…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Special Interrogatories cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This matter was heretofore before the Court on an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant in an action for personal injury based on negligence and breach of warranty. 350 F. 2d 479, cert. den. 382 U.S. 987, 86 S.Ct. 549, 15 L.Ed. 2d 475. The appeal was from that portion of the judgment which was predicated upon the jury’s determination on the issues relating to the alleged breach of warranty. The judgment was reversed and the action was remanded to the court below “with the direction that a new trial be had.” The matter is now before the court on a “Motion for Clarification of Mandate” filed by the appellant. Although the mandate does not require clarification, the earlier opinion of this court and the mandate must be amended.
Pursuant to Fed.Rules' Civ.Proc., rule 49(a), 28 U.S.C.A., the issues were submitted to the jury on special interrogatories in response to which the jury found: (1) the smoking of Chesterfield cigarettes by the plaintiff was “the cause, or one of the causes,” of cancer; (2) the defendant was not chargeable with negligence; (3) the defendant made no “express warranties upon which the plaintiff relied and by which he was induced to purchase” the cigarettes; and (4) the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by his smoking the cigarettes. Since the issue of causation was decided by the jury in the earlier trial, the plaintiff may not be required to relitigate the same issue when the action is retried. Green v. American Tobacco Co., 325 F. 2d 673, 678 (5th Cir. 1963), cert. den. 377 U.S. 943, 84 S.Ct. 1349, 12 L.Ed.2d 306. However, the issues as to liability and damages must be relitigated.
The last paragraph of our filed opinion, page 11, will be amended to read as follows: “The judgment of the court below will be reversed and the action will be remanded with the direction that a new trial be had limited to the issues of liability, (except as to the finding that the cause, or one of the causes, of cancer was the smoking of Chesterfield cigarettes by the plaintiff, as set forth in special finding of fact No. 1), and damages.” The mandate will be amended accordingly.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. Sanitary Scale Co., 431 F.2d 371 (3d Cir. 1970)
-
The United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172 (3d Cir. 1989)
-
Justin Havee for William Henry Belk, Jr. v. Irwin Belk, 775 F.2d 1209 (4th Cir. 1985)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co., 350 F.2d 479 (3d Cir. 1965)
- Green v. Am. Tobacco Co., 325 F.2d 673 (5th Cir. 1963)
- Thompson v. Kawasaki Kisen, 382 U.S. 987 (U.S. 1966)
- Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. Pritchard, 382 U.S. 987 (U.S. 1966)
- King v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 377 U.S. 943 (U.S. 1964)
- Burlington-Rock Island R.R. Co. v. United States, 377 U.S. 943 (U.S. 1964)