Case Title: Crockett v. Missouri Pacific Rld. Co.

Citation: 188 Kan. 518, 363 P.2d 536

Docket Number: 42,278

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1961-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
188 Kan. 518 (1961)
363 P.2d 536
CAIN CROCKETT, Appellee,
v.
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
No. 42,278

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 8, 1961.
Ralph M. Hope, of Wichita, argued the cause, and W.F. Lilleston; George C. Spradling; Henry V. Gott; George Stallwitz; Richard W. Stavely; Charles S. Lindberg, and Ronald M. Gott, all of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellant.
William L. Fry, of Wichita, argued the cause, and J.D. White and Chester I. Lewis, both of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARKER, C.J.:
This was an action under the Federal Employers Liability Act to recover for injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff by reason of the alleged negligence of defendant.
After joinder of issues by appropriate pleadings the cause was tried and submitted to a jury which ultimately returned a general *519 verdict along with its answers to special questions in favor of the defendant. Thereafter, following consideration of plaintiff's motion to vacate the jury's verdict and its answer to special question No. 1, and to grant plaintiff a new trial, the trial court sustained the motion and granted plaintiff a new trial. This appeal, wherein it is conceded the sole question involved on appellate review is whether the trial court erred in granting a new trial after the verdict for the defendant, followed.
After carefully considering the briefs of the parties the court has decided that, without burdening its reports with a detailed factual statement, the single issue presented by the appeal may be disposed of on the basis of findings made by the trial court in a memorandum decision, in which it notified counsel it was granting plaintiff a new trial. These findings were subsequently incorporated in its journal entry of judgment.
So far as here pertinent, the findings, to which we have just referred, read:
Directing our attention to the second paragraph of the heretofore quoted findings the appellant contends the trial court granted the motion for a new trial solely upon the sixth ground thereof, i.e., erroneous instructions and in so doing clearly set forth the only reason *520 for its order sustaining the motion. If the premise upon which appellant bases this contention were to be accepted as warranted by the findings in their entirety there would be much merit to contentions advanced by its ingenious counsel challenging the propriety of that ruling. However, it is neither necessary nor required that we here labor contentions based upon that construction.
The difficulty from appellant's standpoint, as we view it, is that it either fails or refuses to recognize the force and effect to be given the conclusion announced by the trial court, in the third paragraph of the above quoted findings, wherein it stated "and the Court feels that the ends of justice require that the verdict be vacated" and then rendered judgment accordingly.
After carefully considering all arguments advanced by the parties with respect to the construction to be given the findings in their entirety, it is the unanimous opinion of the members of this court that by the language used in the paragraph last above mentioned the trial court definitely indicated, in language so clear and unequivocal there could be no mistaking it, that it was dissatisfied with the verdict and was vacating such verdict and granting the appellee a new trial on that ground as well as the one previously mentioned in its findings.
With the findings construed as just indicated, this case falls squarely within the rule announced in our comparatively recent decision of Nicholas v. Latham, 179 Kan. 348, 295 P.2d 631, where it is held:
And in the opinion said:
More recent decisions dealing with principles of law relating to the consideration and disposition of appeals from orders sustaining motions for a new trial are Abercrombie v. State Highway Commission, 185 Kan. 47, 340 P.2d 377, and McClay v. Highway Commission, 185 Kan. 271, 272, 273, 341 P.2d 995.
See, also, the numerous decisions listed in Hatcher's Kansas Digest [Rev. Ed.], New Trial § 25, Appeal & Error, §§ 458 to 463, incl.; West's Kansas Digest, New Trial § 110, Appeal & Error §§ 977 to 979, incl.; Dassler's Kansas Code, Annotated, Pleading and Practice [Supplementary Edition], Chap. 77, § 17, p. 711.
What has been heretofore stated and held requires affirmance of the trial court's order and judgment vacating the verdict and granting the motion for a new trial. It is so ordered.