Trial issues

Question 1

1) Monfore v. Phillips

Answer 1

1. Facts
   i) P was treated for neck pain and by accident no one ever told him he had throat cancer. All the D settled except one. When he found out he tried to amend the pre-trial conference to change his case.
   
   2. Holdings
      i) Final pretrial orders may only be amended to prevent manifest injustice.

Question 2

1) Reid v. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad

Answer 2

1. Facts
   i) P’s cow got onto the railway track, under dispute is whether it went through a break in the fence or an open gate.
   2. Holding
   i) It is incumbent on the plaintiff to present undisputed evidence in order to render a defendant liable.
   ii) Evidence was insufficient to support the verdict therefore there is an issue and the judge may move for a directed verdict.

Question 3

2) Pennsylvania RR v. Chamberlain

Answer 3

1. Facts
   i) P sued D over death of his relative. One witness said the trains collided, 3 witnesses said they did not. 2. Holding
   i) A plaintiff has not maintained the proposition upon which recovery is likely when evidence tends equally to sustain either of two inconsistent propositions.

Question 4

1) Lind v. Schenley Industries

Answer 4

1. Facts
   i) P sued D over a breach of oral contract concerning a wage dispute. Trial judge didn’t like the verdict so he ordered a new trial.
   
   2. Holding
      i) A judge should not set aside the jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence simply because he would have come to a different conclusion.

Question 5

1) Peterson v. Wilson

Answer 5

i) P sued D, after the D fired him from his position. Jury set aside the instructions and issued their own ruling. Judge found out and ordered a new trial
2. Holding
i) The near universal and firmly established common-law rule in the US flatly prohibited the admission of juror testimony to impeach a jury verdict