Fratta v. Grace Line, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Rita E. Shaw v. Edward Hines Lumber Co. (7th Cir. 1957)
- Tolson v. District of Columbia (D.C. 2004)
- Obolensky v. G.P. Putnam's Sons (District Court, S.D. New York 1986)
- Cappellini v. Bradford Shipping Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1983)
- J. Warren Gratian v. General Dynamics, Inc. (2d Cir. 1978)
- Smith v. Chase Manhattan Corp. (United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama 1978)
- Davis v. United States (District Court, N.D. Texas 1974)
- Hooks v. New York Central Railroad (District Court, N.D. New York 1963)
- Thompson v. Lillehei (D. Minn. 1958)
- 6551 Collins Avenue Corp. v. Millen (Fla. 1958)
- Wilson v. United States (District Court, N.D. New York 1957)
- Lindeman v. Textron, Incorporated (2d Cir. 1956)
- George C. Saunders v. Pool Shipping Co., Ltd. (5th Cir. 1956)
- Lindeman v. Textron, Inc. (2d Cir. 1956)
- AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. OF HARTFORD v. Williams (D.C. 1955)
- Kimmel v. Yankee Lines, Inc. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1954)
- Frabutt v. New York, C. & St. L. R. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1950)
- Moffett v. Arabian American Oil Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1949)
- Hirshhorn v. Mine Safety Appliances Co. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1948)
- Boulter v. Commercial Standard Ins. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1948)
- Resnick v. Wolf & Cohen, Inc. (D.C. 1946)
- Hiltz v. Atlantic Refining Co. (3d Cir. 1945)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Adoph Fratta was employed as a seaman from March 10, 1938, to July 11, 1938, aboard defendant’s vessel, S.S. “Santa Inez.” He died of cancer of the stomach on August 16, 1939. There was testimony from which the jury might reasonably believe that, while in defendant’s employ, he ate bad food served to him by defendant. The sole question is whether there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury on the issue of whether the eating of the bad food was a contributing cause of the cancer. 1 There *744 was evidence indicating that Fratta was suffering from a gastric ulcerous condition before and while he was employed by defendant. There was expert testimony that the eating of bad food could'cause or aggravate such an ulcerous condition. While some of the expert testimony was to the effect that the eating of bad food did not, and could not, cause or contribute to cancer, one physician, 'Dr. Engel, who sufficiently qualified as an expert, testified that the eating of poor food or bad food would so aggravate a gastric ulcer as to lead to cancer; he stated that, basing his opinion on the hospital records which were in evidence, he was of the opinion that “there was a sequence between the initial ulcer and the subsequent cancer.” Whatever the trial judge may have thought of the competence of the respective experts, it was not within his province to pass upon that issue. Accordingly, the trial judge erred in directing a verdict.
We take this occasion to suggest to trial judges that, generally speaking — although there may be exceptions — it is desirable not to direct a verdict at the close of the evidence, but to reserve decision on any motion therefor and allow the jury to bring in a verdict; the trial judge may then, if he thinks it improper, set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence and grant the motion, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 50(b), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, with the consequence that if, on appeal, we disagree with him, we will be in a position to reinstate the verdict, thus avoiding the waste and expense of another trial.
Reversed.
Defendant argues that plaintiff’s complaint alleged that Fratta’s death was due merely to the failure of defendant to furnish adequate medical and surgical aid while he was in defendant’s employ, after he became ill, and mentioned nothing about his death having been caused by an ulcer which led to cancer. But plaintiff’s bill of particulars expressly stated such facts, so that defendant was in no way surprised; it was therefore entirely proper that plaintiff should ask at the close of the case to have her pleadings amended to conform to the proof. The trial court judge in effect granted leave so to amend and in so doing obviously committed no error.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.