Case Title: Lorbeer v. Weatherby

Citation: 190 Kan. 576, 376 P.2d 926

Docket Number: 42,941

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1962-12-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
190 Kan. 576 (1962)
376 P.2d 926
ADLEY LORBEER, Appellant,
v.
ROGER KENT WEATHERBY, A Minor, by and through his Father and Next Friend, HOWARD G. WEATHERBY, Appellee.
No. 42,941

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 8, 1962.
Albert Poznik, of Neodesha, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.
Steven W. Rogers, of Fredonia, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PRICE, J.:
This was an action to recover for the alleged negligence of defendant, Roger Kent Weatherby, in backing his car into an electric gasoline pump owned by plaintiff.
Judgment was for defendant, and plaintiff has appealed.
As the case is presented to us, the underlying question is whether the verdict is supported by the evidence. Stated another way  the question is whether the verdict is contrary to the evidence.
Highly summarized  the petition alleges:
Both plaintiff and defendant are residents of Neodesha. Plaintiff is the owner of the premises and equipment leased for purposes of a gasoline filling station. On the night of February 13, 1960, defendant backed his car into an electric gasoline pump owned by plaintiff and being used at the filling station. As a result the pump *577 was knocked over, bent, smashed, damaged and rendered substantially valueless. Defendant was negligent in that he failed to observe the pump; failed to keep and maintain a reasonable and proper lookout, and carelessly failed to keep his car under reasonable and proper control so as to enable him to avoid colliding with the pump. As a result of defendant's negligence plaintiff was damaged in the amount of $686.95, and recovery was sought in that amount, together with costs.
The answer is not abstracted, but we are told it consisted of a general denial and an admission of the identity of the parties and their addresses.
Because of the disposition we believe must be made of this case  the evidence contained in the record is set out in full.
From the abstract:
"TESTIMONY OF LESTER M. HOFF.
"Direct Examination.
"Q. Did you talk with Roger Kent at the scene?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Q. What was said, if anything?
"Q. Did you make an arrest at the time?
"A. No, I didn't.
"Q. What was the reason you did not?
"A. He said he would take care of it.
"TESTIMONY OF ROGER KENT WEATHERBY.
"Direct Examination.
*578 
*579 
*580 Notwithstanding the force and effect of the aforementioned general rules  including the weight to be given the fact that here the trial court approved the verdict  it is our opinion that on the record presented, and which has been quoted in full, this verdict is not supported by any evidence and is in fact directly contrary to the evidence.
A jury is not authorized arbitrarily or from partiality or caprice to disregard uncontradicted and unimpeached testimony, nor to disregard the only evidence upon a material question in controversy and return a verdict in direct opposition. (In re Estate of Erwin, 170 Kan. 728, syl. 1, 228 P.2d 739.)
In A.T. & S.F. Rld. Co. v. Wagner, 33 Kan. 660, 7 Pac. 204, it was held:
In Dewey v. Barnhouse, 75 Kan. 214, 88 Pac. 877 (although having to do with special findings), it was held:
In Collins v. Morris, 97 Kan. 264, 155 Pac. 51, it was held:
On the proposition that where a verdict is contrary to or not supported by the evidence, it should be set aside and a new trial granted, see also the numerous cases cited in Hatcher's Kansas Digest, Rev. Ed., Volume 4, New Trial, §§ 22 and 24.
On the record presented this verdict is not supported by any evidence and is in fact directly contrary thereto. It was, therefore, erroneously approved by the trial court. The judgment is reversed with directions to grant a new trial.
WERTZ, J., not participating.