## Facts

- During the November 9, 1965 regional blackout, a passenger car driven by Samuel Simblest collided with a fire engine driven by Joseph Maynard at the intersection of Main Street and South Willard Street in Burlington, Vermont.
- The accident occurred around 5:27 p.m. in darkness, with clear weather and light traffic; the intersection had an overhead traffic signal.
- Simblest drove west on Main Street; Maynard drove south on South Willard Street responding to a fire alarm in a pumper he regularly operated.
- Simblest testified the traffic light was green for him when he entered the intersection and then went dark as he proceeded through.
- Other witnesses testified the traffic signal had been out for several minutes before the collision due to the blackout.
- Simblest claimed he did not see or hear the fire engine until it was too late; other testimony indicated the fire engine approached with siren and warning lights operating.
- A jury returned a verdict for Simblest and awarded $17,125 in damages.
- The district court granted Maynard’s post-verdict Rule 50(b) motion, set aside the verdict, and entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict for Maynard.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find for Simblest, or instead required judgment for Maynard because Simblest was contributorily negligent as a matter of law under Vermont negligence rules.
2. Whether the evidence required a jury instruction on Vermont’s doctrine of last clear chance.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict for Maynard.
- The court held that, even viewing the record most favorably to Simblest, the evidence compelled the conclusion that Simblest was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
- The court held the trial judge properly refused to instruct on last clear chance because the record did not provide an adequate evidentiary basis for applying the doctrine.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 50, judgment as a matter of law is proper when there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party; courts view evidence favorably to that party and do not assess witness credibility.
- Where applicable state law recognizes contributory negligence as a complete bar to recovery, a plaintiff’s contributory negligence established as a matter of law requires judgment for the defendant, regardless of evidence of the defendant’s negligence.
- Motorists must yield to authorized emergency vehicles when required warning devices are in operation; failure to perceive and yield may constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law when the record permits only that conclusion.
- Vermont’s last clear chance doctrine requires evidence that the defendant discovered or should have discovered the plaintiff’s peril in time to avoid the harm by reasonable care; absent such proof, the instruction is properly denied.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld setting aside the plaintiff’s jury verdict because the only reasonable inference from the record was that the plaintiff failed to observe and yield to an approaching emergency vehicle and was therefore contributorily negligent as a matter of law; the evidence also did not support submitting last clear chance to the jury.


Simblest v. Maynard, 427 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1970)