Freed v. Erie Lackawanna Railway Co. – Case Brief
Freed v. Erie Lackawanna Railway Co., 445 F.2d 619 (6th Cir. 1971).
Facts: Freed (P), the head brakeman on a freight train for Erie Lackawanna Railway (D), was struck by the caboose of a switching train while at work.
During deliberations the jury submitted a question to the court asking whether the switch train had been within the yard limits at the time of the accident. D had stated in an answer to an interrogatory that the switching train was outside the yard limits and therefore was required to have a lookout on the caboose. D also produced evidence that indicated that the train had been within the yard limits at the time of the accident, in which case the railroad would not have been required to have a lookout present.
The court declined to answer on the grounds that it involved a question of fact. The jury returned a verdict for Erie and Freed appealed. Freed asserted that D had admitted in the answer to the interrogatory that the train was outside the yard limits, and was an admission against interest and therefore binding against D, and that the court should have replied to the jury that the train was outside the yard limits at the time of the accident.
Issue: Is an answer made by a defendant to an interrogatory binding against it if it is contradicted by other evidence adduced by that party?
Holding and Rule: No. An answer made by a defendant to an interrogatory is not binding against it if it is contradicted by other evidence adduced by that party.
The court reasoned that answers to interrogatories must often be supplied before investigation is completed and can rest only upon knowledge which is available at the time. When there is conflict between answers supplied in response to interrogatories and answers obtained through other questioning, either in deposition or trial, the finder of fact must weigh all of the answers and resolve the conflict.
Disposition: Affirmed.