Baltimore And Carolina Line Inc. Vs Redman Case Summary
Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U.S. 654 (1935)
Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict a term defined as a verdict given by the jury that does not reflect the facts given at the trial. The jury could have made a mistake by misunderstanding the directions from the court, or verdict contrary to law. These verdicts may be overturned by the judge resulting in an obvious verdict and making sure justice is served.
Issue: This case involves 38 year old seaman Redman seeking damages for personal injuries sustained through the defendant's negligence. The defendant moved for a dismissal of Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.
Facts: Location Brooklyn, New York, Redman states he injured himself in the ship's galley by tripping over a broken crate and puncturing his foot with a nail. He washed the scratch with hot water and continued to work. The next day his foot became swollen so he went to a pharmacy to retrieve liniment, stayed ashore to nurse his injury. The following day, he went back to the ship, however, it …show more content…
During the trial his recollection of the facts wavered. The medical staff does not recall Redman referencing the scratch. One theory is the gangrene was brought on by working in a wet environment on the ship and sleeping in a cold environment due to the steam being turned off in the hull of the ship. The dousing of hot water on the foot, aggravated the wound, and blistered the skin. The medical staff did agree that the gangrene Redman suffered from was the dry type, which could not have resulted from the given elements. It was proved beyond a doubt that an infected wound was not discovered at the hospital. If the gangrene had been the wet type, then the periarterial sympathectomy procedure would not have been performed. However, the information about the type of gangrene Redman contracted was not mentioned in court for the jury to way. [Note
Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict a term defined as a verdict given by the jury that does not reflect the facts given at the trial. The jury could have made a mistake by misunderstanding the directions from the court, or verdict contrary to law. These verdicts may be overturned by the judge resulting in an obvious verdict and making sure justice is served.
Issue: This case involves 38 year old seaman Redman seeking damages for personal injuries sustained through the defendant's negligence. The defendant moved for a dismissal of Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.
Facts: Location Brooklyn, New York, Redman states he injured himself in the ship's galley by tripping over a broken crate and puncturing his foot with a nail. He washed the scratch with hot water and continued to work. The next day his foot became swollen so he went to a pharmacy to retrieve liniment, stayed ashore to nurse his injury. The following day, he went back to the ship, however, it …show more content…
During the trial his recollection of the facts wavered. The medical staff does not recall Redman referencing the scratch. One theory is the gangrene was brought on by working in a wet environment on the ship and sleeping in a cold environment due to the steam being turned off in the hull of the ship. The dousing of hot water on the foot, aggravated the wound, and blistered the skin. The medical staff did agree that the gangrene Redman suffered from was the dry type, which could not have resulted from the given elements. It was proved beyond a doubt that an infected wound was not discovered at the hospital. If the gangrene had been the wet type, then the periarterial sympathectomy procedure would not have been performed. However, the information about the type of gangrene Redman contracted was not mentioned in court for the jury to way. [Note